9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 380 - HC - GSTChallenge to impugned order passed u/s 73(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18 - petitioner failed to reply to notices stating that the petitioner was unaware of the same as the notices were posted on the GST common portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, the discretion is exercised partly in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax 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 order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to an order under Section 73(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18 due to discrepancies in tax liability, petitioner's failure to respond to notices, time-barred appeal, and the court's decision on setting aside the impugned order.
Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Impugned Order: The petitioner contested the order dated 28.06.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18, citing discrepancies in tax liability arising from a mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the notices and the order, as they were posted on the GST common portal and not physically received. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, emphasizing that the tax liability arose during the initial years of GST implementation. 2. Time-Barred Appeal: The respondent argued that the writ petition was time-barred, invoking the decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case. The respondent contended that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of the GST Enactments, citing precedents. However, the court acknowledged the petitioner's potential case on merits and exercised discretion in favor of the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh orders, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. 3. Court's Decision: After considering arguments from both parties, the court decided to partially favor the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with the law. The court required the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to the respondent within 30 days. The impugned order was quashed and deemed an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order and deposit, with the respondent expected to issue fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions, without imposing any costs.
|
