9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 768 - HC - GSTChallenge to intimation of tax issued under Section 73(5) of the KGST/CGST Act 2017 since the petitioner is not liable to pay tax on royalty - HELD THAT - A perusal of Annexure-D intimation of tax ascertained under Section 73(5) of KGST Act 2017 would reveal that it is only an intimation of ascertained tax with liberty to the petitioner to pay along with interest or to file his submission. Failing to pay the ascertained tax petitioner would be issued further notice under Section 73(1) and thereafter the Competent Authority shall have to pass order under Section 73(9) of KGST Act. Further intimation of tax ascertained at Annexure-D also provides an opportunity to file any submission of the petitioner against the said intimation itself. Since no show cause notice under Section 73(1) of KGST Act is issued and no order in terms of Section 73(9) of KGST Act is passed the present writ petition would be premature. Hence writ petition stands rejected.
**Summary:**In the case heard by the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit, the petitioner challenged an "intimation of tax" under Section 73(5) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017, arguing that they were not liable to pay tax on royalty. The petitioner's counsel, Sri. Ganapathi Narayana Bhat, contended that the tax demand was unjustified. However, the Additional Government Advocate, Sri. K. Hemakumar, argued that the writ petition was premature. He clarified that the intimation under Section 73(5) was merely an opportunity for the petitioner to pay the ascertained tax with interest or to submit objections. If the petitioner failed to comply, a show cause notice under Section 73(1) would be issued, leading to potential orders under Section 73(9) and subsequent demand and recovery proceedings.The court, after reviewing the petition and relevant provisions, concluded that the petition was premature as no show cause notice under Section 73(1) had been issued, nor any order under Section 73(9) passed. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected.
|
