9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1199 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - appealable order or not - opportunity of hearing provided or not - Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/ CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - It is found that the authority has recorded that the Registered Tax Prayer (RTP), namely, the appellant has neither appeared nor filed any reply to the intimation given to the appellant. There are no need to go into the controversy as to whether the documents were submitted and as to whether the authority concerned, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax had received those documents as this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellant to submit all the documents and the cancellation of registration was not justified. If these have been adopted, it will not only safeguard the interests of the appellant but also aid the revenue who were interested in recovery of appropriate taxes. The appeal stands allowed in part and the appeal alongwith the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the appellant to treat the order passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017 read with CGST Act, 2017 dated 23.03.2022 as an additional show cause notice and the appellant is directed to submit reply alongwith all relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.
Issues:
Challenge against order under Section 74(9) of WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 - Appellable order - Non-appearance of Registered Tax Prayer (RTP) - Submission of documents - Cancellation of registration - Granting opportunity to submit documents - Disposal of appeal and writ petition - Fresh consideration by concerned authority - No coercive action. Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta heard an intra court appeal challenging an order passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The appellant sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari to cancel the order dated 23.03.2022. The learned Single Judge considered the order as appellable and directed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition, imposing a condition for the appellant to deposit 10% of the demand to avoid coercive action. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant appealed to the High Court. Upon examining the impugned order, the Court noted that the Registered Tax Prayer (RTP) did not appear or file any reply to the intimation. However, the appellant's counsel argued that the conclusion was factually incorrect, referring to a letter dated 17.09.2021 where the appellant had authorized a representative to submit necessary documents. Acknowledgment of this letter by the State Commissioner's office was also highlighted. The Court decided not to delve into the controversy of document submission, granting the appellant another opportunity to submit all relevant documents. It opined that canceling the registration was unjustified and allowing the submission of documents would protect the appellant's interests and aid revenue recovery. Consequently, the Court directed the appellant to treat the order as an additional show cause notice and submit a reply with relevant documents within two weeks. The Court disposed of the appeal and writ petition with a common order, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by the concerned authority. It emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the appellant until final orders are passed, allowing the appellant to present all factual and legal grounds before the authority. The connected application to the appeal was also disposed of, with no costs imposed.
|
