2025 (3) TMI 1176 - HC - GST

Seeking to quash impugned order - applicability of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act for certain financial years - HELD THAT - The impugned Order-in-Original comprises of and encompasses the periods2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 and April 2023 - July 2023. In this context it is relevant to state that the Amnesty Scheme passed under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act is for the years 2017-18 2018-19 and 2019-20. Under these circumstances in view of the specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they would intend to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh by issuing certain directions in accordance with law. The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:

a) Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, should be set aside due to the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act for certain financial years.

b) Whether the petitioner should be allowed to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.

c) Whether the matter should be remitted back to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration and issuance of separate orders for each financial period in question.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

a) Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act provides relief for specific financial years, namely 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. This scheme is intended to allow taxpayers to regularize their tax obligations for these periods.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the impugned order covered multiple financial years, including those eligible for the Amnesty Scheme. The Court emphasized the need for Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the order in light of the Amnesty Scheme's applicability to the eligible years.

- Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the impugned order did not differentiate between the financial years eligible for the Amnesty Scheme and those that were not. This lack of differentiation necessitated a reconsideration of the order.

- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme to the facts, determining that the petitioner should be allowed to benefit from the scheme for the eligible years. This necessitated setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued against the merit of the petition, but the Court found the petitioner's argument regarding the Amnesty Scheme's applicability persuasive.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order should be set aside due to the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme for certain years and remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration.

b) Reconsideration and Issuance of Separate Orders

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework requires that tax orders be clear and specific to each financial period, especially when different legal provisions apply to different periods.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that separate orders for each financial year would ensure clarity and allow the petitioner to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme where applicable.

- Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the impugned order encompassed multiple years without distinction, which was inadequate given the different legal treatments required for different periods.

- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the requirement for clarity and specificity in tax orders to the facts, determining that separate orders were necessary.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not provide a compelling argument against the need for separate orders, and the Court found in favor of the petitioner's request.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that Respondent No. 3 should issue separate orders for each financial year in question, ensuring compliance with the legal requirements and allowing the petitioner to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme where applicable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that tax orders must reflect the specific legal provisions applicable to each financial period, particularly when an amnesty scheme or similar relief is available for certain years.

- Final determinations on each issue: The Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2023, remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration, and directed the issuance of separate orders for each financial period. The petitioner was allowed to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.

- Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "In view of the specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they would intend to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh, by issuing certain directions, in accordance with law."