Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 438 - HC - GSTDefault of tax or interest or both - Whether the writ petitioner having sent a reply the same should have culminated in some proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 of TN-G ST Act? - HELD THAT - Sub-section (12) of Section 75 of TN-G ST Act opens with a non obstante expression and is notwithstanding Section 73 and Section 74 of TN-G ST Act. Therefore, as regards the interest component qua Section 50(1) of TN-G ST Act, the argument that the notice dated 24.03.2022 should have culminated in proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 is a non-starter. This by itself draws the curtains on the captioned writ petition. This Court deems it appropriate to provide one window to the writ petitioner and that is to say that the first respondent shall consider the reply of the writ petitioner dated 25.04.2022 (scanned and reproduced supra) and take a call on the same as expeditiously as the official business of the first respondent would permit and in any event, within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 24.01.2023 - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 75(12) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Validity of the impugned order under Section 79(1)(c) of TN-GST Act. 3. Consideration of the reply by the first respondent. Interpretation of Section 75(12) of the TN-GST Act: The writ petitioner challenged an impugned order that affected their bank account, arguing that proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 should have followed their reply to the notice issued under Rule 142(1A) of TN-GST Rules. The Revenue counsel defended the order under Section 79(1)(c) of TN-GST Act, stating that the notice treated the petitioner as a defaulter under Section 75(12) for unpaid interest under Section 50(1). The court noted that Section 75(12) overrides Sections 73 and 74, making the argument for further proceedings invalid, thereby concluding this issue. Validity of the Impugned Order under Section 79(1)(c) of TN-GST Act: The impugned order was made under Section 79(1)(c) of TN-GST Act, treating the petitioner as a defaulter for unpaid interest. The court emphasized the importance of specifying the legal provision in such notices for clarity. Despite discrepancies in the notice referring to tax instead of interest, the court found the order valid under Section 75(12) for recovering unpaid self-assessed tax or interest. The court highlighted the need for precision in legal notices for both the Revenue and the dealer. Consideration of the Reply by the First Respondent: The court directed the first respondent to review the petitioner's reply, emphasizing expeditious consideration within three weeks. The reply raised the petitioner's lack of awareness regarding the interest component, which the portal allegedly indicated. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on this matter, leaving it to the first respondent's discretion. The writ petition was closed with a directive for the first respondent to address the reply promptly, ensuring the second respondent's compliance with any subsequent orders under Section 79 of TN-GST Act. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras analyzed the issues surrounding the interpretation of Section 75(12) of TN-GST Act, the validity of the impugned order under Section 79(1)(c), and the consideration of the petitioner's reply by the first respondent. The court clarified the legal implications of the provisions, upheld the impugned order's validity, and directed the first respondent to review the petitioner's reply promptly. The judgment provided clarity on the legal framework governing tax recovery and emphasized the importance of precision in legal communication between the Revenue and the dealer.
|