2024 (8) TMI 298 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment orders passed against the petitioner based on the difference in the Return filed by the petitioner in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - demand of the tax regarding transportation charges - service was availed by the petitioner from the third party or not - HELD THAT - The Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the respective show cause notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders based on differences in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns, imposition of 18% GST instead of 5%, tax liability, transportation charges, compliance with court conditions, time-barred nature of writ petitions and appellate remedy under GST enactments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenging Assessment Orders:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders due to differences in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns, leading to the imposition of 18% GST instead of 5%. The petitioner argued that the assessment was contrary to GST enactments, resulting in a tax liability of Rs. 32,57,972 for the years 2018-19 to 2020-21.

2. Transportation Charges:
A portion of the tax demand related to transportation charges, which the petitioner contended was unjustified as they used their own transport and did not avail services from third parties. The petitioner argued that taxing transportation charges was unwarranted in their case.

3. Compliance with Court Conditions:
The petitioner expressed willingness to comply with reasonable conditions set by the court to defend their case effectively after the impugned orders were set aside. They sought an opportunity to present their case and requested the court's intervention in this regard.

4. Time-Barred Nature of Writ Petitions:
The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that the writ petitions were time-barred and should be dismissed due to delays, citing a Supreme Court decision. They highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations under GST enactments for filing appeals.

5. Court Decision and Remedies:
After considering arguments from both sides, the court decided to quash the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the respondent for fresh assessment. The petitioner was required to deposit 30% of the disputed tax to the respondent and file replies to show cause notices within 30 days. Fresh orders were to be passed expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

6. Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions with the direction for fresh assessment, emphasizing compliance with court conditions and statutory timelines. The impugned orders were treated as addendum to show cause notices, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to present their case before final orders were passed. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.