9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1243 - HC - GSTSeeking quashing of impugned order - petitioner neither participated in the show cause proceeding nor filed any statutory appeal in time - HELD THAT - There is no proper explanation also forthcoming from the petitioner as to why the statutory appeal was not filed in time except stating that the petitioner had handed over the papers to the Sale Tax Practitioner/GST Practitioner to file an appeal, but was not filed. This Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Failure to participate in show cause proceeding and file statutory appeal in time. 2. Inclusion of VAT turnover in determining GST liability. 3. Quashing of impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner did not participate in the show cause proceeding or file any statutory appeal in time, leading to the challenge of the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 through a writ petition. The petitioner mentioned handing over papers to a Sales Tax Practitioner/GST Practitioner for filing an appeal, which was not done. The lack of a proper explanation for the delay was noted by the court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount taxable under the TNVAT Act, 2006 was included in determining the petitioner's tax liability under the GST Act from 01.07.2017. It was contended that the VAT turnover should not be automatically included in the GST turnover based on a comparison with returns filed by the Department. 3. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Court decided to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the notice issued earlier, with the expectation that a fresh order would be passed within three months. Overall, the writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment delivered by the High Court.
|
