Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1035 - HC - GSTIssues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the show cause notice under the CGST/JGST Act, the question of the proper officer, and the extended period of limitation. Challenge to Show Cause Notice: The Hon'ble High Court considered the challenge to the show cause notice under the CGST/JGST Act. The revenue raised a preliminary objection, citing the need for the petitioner to raise all objections before the assessing officer first. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that excise law is a complete code and that a writ court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 until objections are raised before the issuing authority. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of law. The court found that the dispute involved a pure question of law regarding whether the supply was a composite or mixed supply under the Act. Question of Proper Officer: Regarding the question of the proper officer, the court referred to a judgment where it was established that the proper officer has the power to summon individuals for inquiries. The respondent was deemed a proper officer under the CGST Act and was entitled to issue summons in connection with the inquiry against the petitioner. The court clarified the definition of a proper officer and upheld the respondent's authority in issuing the summons. Extended Period of Limitation: The court discussed the extended period of limitation and referred to a judgment stating that such period can only be invoked if there is a positive act of fraud by the assessee. The revenue argued that since it was the initial stage of the show-cause process, the petitioner should go to the assessing officer first. The court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of abuse of process of law and lack of jurisdiction in the show cause notice. It distinguished previous judgments cited by the respondent, stating that they were not applicable to the current case. The court concluded that the instant writ application was maintainable, considering the background of the case and the issues raised. The case was listed for further hearing on merit at a later date.
|