9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1130 - HC - GSTEntitlement to benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act post-reassessment - respondent No. 4 did not consider the claim of the petitioner qua Circular bearing No. 123/42/2019-GST dated 11.11.2019 Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/05/23/GST dated 17.07.2022 on the sole ground that the petitioner had not produced relevant documents in this regard - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that respondent No. 4 has referred to specific submission/contention of the petitioner that he places reliance upon the aforesaid three circulars in support of its claim. However the said contention/claim had been rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner had not produced relevant documents in this regard as can be seen from page No. 45 of the impugned order at paragraph 30 wherein respondent No. 4 has come to the conclusion that the details invoices debit notes etc. have not been furnished by the petitioner. However in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner the petitioner would file additional pleadings documents etc. without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions it is deemed just and appropriate to set the impugned order and remit the matter back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh and pass appropriate order within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law. In so far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they intend to avail the benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act is concerned immediately upon respondent No. 4 passing appropriate orders as stated supra the petitioner would be entitled to make an application for the benefit under the earnesty scheme which shall be considered by the concerned respondent in accordance with law. Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to apply for the Amnesty Scheme benefits post-reassessment. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Quashing of the Impugned Order Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner challenges the order under the provisions of the CGST Act, specifically citing procedural lapses in consideration of the circulars and documentation. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the respondent had rejected the petitioner's claim based on the absence of relevant documents, despite the petitioner's reliance on specific circulars. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order referred to the petitioner's reliance on three circulars, yet dismissed the claim due to the lack of submitted documents. Application of law to facts: The Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued for dismissal of the petition, but the Court sided with the petitioner's request for another opportunity to present evidence. Conclusions: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. 2. Entitlement to Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 128A of the CGST Act provides for an Amnesty Scheme, allowing taxpayers to resolve outstanding tax liabilities. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's intention to avail the Amnesty Scheme post-quantification of tax liability. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner expressed readiness to apply for the scheme once the tax liability is determined. Application of law to facts: The Court directed that upon the respondent passing appropriate orders, the petitioner could apply for the Amnesty Scheme benefits. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent did not specifically counter this request, focusing instead on the merits of the petition itself. Conclusions: The petitioner is entitled to apply for the Amnesty Scheme benefits following the respondent's reassessment. 3. Submission of Additional Documents Relevant legal framework and precedents: The procedural fairness under administrative law principles allows parties to present evidence supporting their claims. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court deemed it just to allow the petitioner to submit additional documents to support their claim. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner asserted they could furnish the necessary documentation if given another opportunity. Application of law to facts: The Court allowed the petitioner to file additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent must consider. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's focus on the absence of documents was countered by the petitioner's willingness to provide them. Conclusions: The petitioner is granted the opportunity to submit additional documents, which the respondent must review in their reassessment. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "I deem it just and appropriate to set the impugned order and remit the matter back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh and pass appropriate order, within a stipulated time frame, in accordance with law." Core principles established: The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for parties to present complete evidence in support of their claims. Final determinations on each issue:
|
