9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 445 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of remedy of statutory appeal - amount of CGST has been included mistakenly in the annual turnover of the petitioner which is contrary to the definition of turnover given in CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The remedy of statutory appeal cannot be avoided or bypassed merely because the assessee is liable to pay 10% of the total recovery amount. If the Assessing Officer has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner, the same can be considered by the appellate Authority and if the petitioner succeeds in appeal, the amount so deposited will be refunded to him. The appellate Authority is also liable to examine the conduct and working of its subordinate officers as to whether they are working properly or not while exercising quasi judicial powers. In paragraph 14, the Assessing Officer has observed that it is very difficult to verify the contention of the noticee merely on the basis of copy of profit and loss account submitted in two pages, as the noticee had not provided any concurrent documentary evidences i.e. any ledgers, financial details, ledgers related to notes of profit and loss accounts and any other details by which it could be ascertained whether the contentions of the noticee are justifiable. Before this Court also, the petitioner has only filed annual return as Annexure P/4 (Form GSTR-9) and Reconciliation Statement (Form GSTR- 9C, Anenxure P/5) in which these figures are mentioned in tabular form, but documents in support of these figures are liable to be examined by the Assessing Authority or Appellate Authority and not by the writ Court. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file appeal.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise on the payment of GST for the period 1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018. 2. Discrepancy in turnover declared in annual return and reconciliation statement. 3. Lack of opportunity for personal hearing to explain the discrepancy. 4. Imposition of GST demand, interest, and penalty on the petitioner. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of the remedy of appeal. 6. Consideration of documents and merits of the case by the appellate authority. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise regarding the payment of GST for a specific period. The dispute arose due to a discrepancy in the turnover declared by the petitioner in the annual return and the reconciliation statement. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the retail/wholesale business of motor vehicles, submitted explanations for the inconsistency, attributing it to the inclusion of CGST in the turnover. The Additional Commissioner issued a notice under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, demanding payment of GST amounting to Rs. 40,24,49,457/- along with interest and penalty. 2. The petitioner contended that they were not afforded a proper opportunity for personal hearing to explain the discrepancy. Despite submitting oral and written explanations, the petitioner did not opt for personal hearing as the authorities seemed satisfied with the submissions. The petitioner argued that if an adverse decision was contemplated, a hearing should have been provided as per section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner raised concerns about the financial burden of appealing the order, which required payment of 10% of the total demand. 3. The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of the remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents highlighted the discrepancy in the values declared by the petitioner in different sections of the GSTR-9C form, leading to an un-reconciled turnover. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Additional Commissioner had validly rejected the petitioner's explanations and that the appellate authority should consider the merits of the case. Emphasizing the requirement of depositing 10% of the total recovery amount for an appeal, the respondents referred to relevant court decisions supporting the necessity of exhausting statutory appeal remedies. 5. The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the grounds raised by the petitioner could be addressed in the statutory appeal process. The court noted that the appellate authority could consider the documents and conduct of the assessing officers. It highlighted the importance of proper verification of contentions through supporting documents, which should be examined by the assessing or appellate authority, not the writ court. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal as per the statutory process. This detailed analysis showcases the key issues, arguments, and the court's decision in the legal judgment.
|
