9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1207 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was unaware of the impugned order that came to be passed as notices that preceded the impugned order were hosted in the GST Common Portal and the petitioner being the Proprietary Concern was unaware of the same - HELD THAT - This Writ Petition is disposed off by remitting the case back to the fourth respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order which stands quashed in this order shall be treated as Addendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above requirement within a period of 30 days, the fourth respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. This Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order and Notification No.09/2023 - Central Tax under CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 by the fourth respondent and Notification No.09/2023 - Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioner decided to withdraw the challenge to the notification. The petitioner received notices in various forms followed by personal hearing notices. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the impugned order due to notices being hosted in the GST Common Portal. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain discrepancies in turnover reported in Form GSTR 2A and taxable turnover declared in Form GSTR 3B, particularly related to setting up a Super Market. The petitioner also highlighted that not the entire turnover in Form GSTR 2A pertained to them, with a portion being non-taxable. The petitioner requested an opportunity to clarify these discrepancies. The Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 4 contended that the Writ Petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, suggesting the petitioner had an alternate remedy through an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. After considering the arguments, the Court decided to remit the case back to the fourth respondent for a fresh order. The petitioner was instructed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days. The impugned order was quashed, to be treated as an Addendum to the show cause notice. The fourth respondent was directed to pass fresh orders within three months after the petitioner's compliance with the deposit requirement. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the above instructions, with no costs imposed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed as a result of this judgment.
|
