2024 (7) TMI 244 - HC - GST

Overlapping of demand - demand was confirmed under Section 63 of the TNGST Act, 2017 earlier and the same demand has been confirmed again in the subsequent orders passed for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The challenge to the impugned orders, on the ground that there is overlapping between demand confirmed earlier under Section 63 of TNGST Act, 2017 for the same assessment years, cannot be countenanced. On this ground, these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not replied to the respective show cause notices that preceded the impugned order - Since the matter would require detailed consideration, the impugned orders are quashed and the cases are remitted back to the respective respondents to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders under Sections 63 and 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested impugned orders issued under Sections 63 and 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, alleging overlapping demands previously confirmed under Section 63. The disputed demands for the assessment years were detailed in the writ petitions. The Government Advocate for the respondents referred to the impugned orders passed under Section 74 for the respective assessment years, highlighting the income details as per Profit & Loss statements. The respondent argued against the challenge to the impugned orders based on the alleged overlapping demands confirmed earlier under Section 63, asserting that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

The court acknowledged the lack of response from the petitioner to the show cause notices preceding the impugned orders due to pending writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions on the grounds of overlapping demands confirmed earlier under Section 63, the court noted the necessity for detailed consideration due to the pending matters. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the respondents for fresh orders on merits and in compliance with the law. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for each financial year, considering the amount already pre-deposited as part of the required pre-deposit. The court concluded by disposing of the writ petitions with the specified directions and without imposing any costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.