9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 868 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before passing the order impugned - jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 namely- Commercial Tax Officer, Kaushambi to pass the order impugned - Section 74 of the SGST Act - Availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - The date fixed in the said notice though was the holiday but opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner on the next working day. In view of this admission, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 23.6.2020 was passed without furnishing opportunity of hearing, cannot be entertained. Availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - As regards, the merits of the objections taken by the petitioner, remedy before the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 namely, Commerical Tax Officer, Kaushambi - HELD THAT - A Circular dated 19.11.2018 addressed to Officers of the Trades Tax Department, U.P. issued by Commercial Tax Officer, U.P. Lucknow has been appended - A perusal thereof indicates that the Commercial Tax Officer has been authorized to deal with the cases of trading units whose taxable trade turnover is in between 15 lacs to 25 lacs - It is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the respondents from page '32' to the paperbook that in GSTR-3B of December, the petitioner had disclosed his taxable turnover of Rs. 2,20,240/-. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the taxable trade turnover of the petitioner is not more then Rs. 25 lacs. The plea of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, is found devoid of merits. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Issues: Opportunity of hearing before passing the order & Jurisdiction of Commercial Tax Officer
The judgment revolves around a challenge to an order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer under the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the Assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner raised two primary grounds of challenge: firstly, the lack of opportunity of hearing before passing the order, and secondly, questioning the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to issue the impugned order. Regarding the first issue of opportunity of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner admitted that a notice under Section 74 of the SGST Act was served, and the petitioner submitted a reply. Although the date fixed for hearing was a holiday, the petitioner was granted a hearing on the next working day. The court held that since an opportunity of hearing was provided, the contention that the order was passed without such an opportunity cannot be entertained. The petitioner was advised that if they had objections, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Circular dated 19.11.2018 indicated that the Commercial Tax Officer was authorized to handle cases of trading units with taxable turnover between 15 to 25 lakhs. The respondents demonstrated from the records that the petitioner's taxable turnover was below 25 lakhs, as disclosed in the GSTR-3B of December. Therefore, the court found the plea of lack of jurisdiction to be without merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being granted the option to file a statutory appeal if desired. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Commercial Tax Officer under the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The judgment clarified the issues of opportunity of hearing and jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process for addressing objections.
|
