9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 880 - HC - GSTValidity of SCN - Jurisdiction of the Respondent-authority under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court on comparative assessment of the same and taking into consideration the discrepancy pointed out in the first show-cause notice, the second show-cause notice has been issued pointing out further discrepancy and, as such, further explanation has been sought. This Court is of the view that since in response to the 1st show-cause notice dated 02.04.2024 explanation has been furnished, as such, at the moment, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner in responding to the second show- cause notice - this Court is of the view that the petitioner needs to explain the alleged discrepancy which has been furnished in the second show-cause notice dated 05.07.2024 for its consideration to proceed with in accordance with law as per the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. This writ petition is disposed of.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Respondent-authority under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Validity of the Notice contained in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 02.04.2024 and 05.07.2024. 3. Compliance with statutory provisions under Section 61 of the JGST Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking the quashing of two notices issued by the Respondent-authority under Section 61 of the JGST Act. The first notice dated 02.04.2024 raised discrepancies related to stone/chips mining and dispatch, while the second notice dated 05.07.2024 sought explanations for discrepancies in tax rates and values of inward supplies. The petitioner argued that the second notice was unnecessary as a response to the first notice had already been submitted. The Respondent contended that the second notice was warranted due to wider discrepancies identified during scrutiny. The Court examined both notices and concluded that the petitioner should provide explanations for the discrepancies mentioned in the second notice as per the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. 2. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the necessity and jurisdiction of the second notice issued on 05.07.2024. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that responding to the first notice should have sufficed, while the State Counsel justified the need for a second notice based on the wider discrepancies identified during scrutiny. After reviewing the contents of both notices and the explanations provided by the petitioner, the Court found that responding to the second notice was essential for compliance with the statutory provisions under Section 61 of the JGST Act. The Court held that the petitioner must address the alleged discrepancies mentioned in the second notice within two weeks for further consideration by the authority. 3. The Court's analysis focused on the statutory framework provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act concerning the scrutiny of returns and issuance of notices by the Assessing Officer. It was emphasized that the petitioner's obligation to explain discrepancies highlighted in the notices was in line with the procedural requirements outlined in the Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to provide reasons for the identified discrepancies in the second notice dated 05.07.2024 within the stipulated timeframe. The authority was instructed to evaluate the explanations in accordance with the law and take appropriate follow-up actions as mandated by Section 61 of the JGST Act.
|
