9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1159 - HC - GSTValidity of summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 and the Order-in Original - DRC-07 does not have any physical or digital signature - time limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner had a remedy of appeal under the GST Act and did not avail such remedy. This petition is not filed within the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act. Thus in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT there are substance in the argument of learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that this petition is not liable to be entertained. Otherwise it will be against the scheme and intention of the statutory provision. The O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024 contained physical signature and it is issued within the limitation period which was extended upto 30.04.2024. DRC-07 is only a summary of order and even if it did not contain any signature it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner can avail the remedy under the relevant statute if law so permits - petition dismissed.
The issues presented and considered in the Telangana High Court judgment are as follows:1. Whether the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 and the Order-in Original (O.I.O.) dated 24.04.2024 are valid and timely?2. Whether there is a provision under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to pass the O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024?3. Whether the absence of a physical or digital signature on the DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024 affects its validity?The Court considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. The petitioner argued that the GST DRC-07 was time-barred, there is no provision in the GST Act to pass the O.I.O., and the absence of a signature on DRC-07 affects its validity. On the other hand, the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC contended that the O.I.O. was within the time limit, the O.I.O. was passed in accordance with Section 73 of the GST Act, and the petitioner could have appealed within the prescribed time frame.The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in CCT v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED (2020) 19 SCC 681, which emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing appeals. The Court noted that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal under the GST Act within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the Court found merit in the argument presented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that the petition should not be entertained as it would go against the legislative scheme and intention of the statutory provision.Based on the above analysis, the Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable and declined admission. The O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024 was found to be valid as it was issued within the extended limitation period, and the absence of a signature on the DRC-07 did not prejudice the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to avail the remedy under the relevant statute if permissible, without imposing any costs.
|
