2024 (8) TMI 299 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order - demand confirmed on the petitioner for the respective assessment years based on the data retrieved by the Department from the profit and loss account and the balance sheet of the petitioner - HELD THAT - The Court is inclined to come to partially rescue 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 25% of the balance disputed tax i.e., Rs. 18,13,582/- (Rs. 27,00,468/- - Rs. 8,86,886/-) to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt 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. It is expected that the petitioner shall file reply to the respective show cause notices that preceded the respective impugned orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with the above deposit. The respondent shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months. These Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, time-barred Writ Petitions, quashing impugned orders, remitting cases back for fresh orders, depositing disputed tax amount, filing reply to show cause notices, expeditious fresh orders.

Analysis:

The petitioner brought Writ Petitions against the impugned orders for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, where the demand was confirmed based on financial data from the petitioner's accounts. The petitioner claimed the orders were incorrect and highlighted their failure to respond to preceding notices and file statutory appeals in time.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent had recovered specific amounts towards the tax liability but requested an opportunity to substantiate the claim. Additionally, they expressed the petitioner's willingness to comply with reasonable conditions set by the Court.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader contended that the Writ Petitions were time-barred and should be dismissed due to delays, citing relevant legal precedents. They emphasized that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under the GST Enactments and urged for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

After considering both parties' arguments, the Court decided to partially favor the petitioner by quashing the impugned orders and sending the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders. The petitioner was instructed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days for the cases to be reconsidered on their merits and in accordance with the law.

The quashed orders were to be treated as addendums to the preceding show cause notices, and the petitioner was given 30 days to respond to these notices after making the deposit. The respondent was directed to issue fresh orders promptly, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before final decisions were made.

Ultimately, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the outlined directions, without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed accordingly.