2023 (2) TMI 320 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction of Inspection u/s 67 and collection of collected records/documents - Existence of reasons to believe for carrying out inspection under Section 67 of the TNGST Act, 2017, or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly, no final orders have been passed pursuant to the impugned intimation letters all dated 07.01.2023. When inspection has been carried out pursuant to the impugned authorisation dated 21.12.2022 and that too, when no final orders have been passed and only an intimation has been given to the petitioner about the proposal to levy taxes, interest and penalty and the petitioner has also been given an opportunity to submit a reply and has also been afforded with personal hearing, the question of entertaining this writ petition at this stage will not arise, as it is premature. However, necessarily the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition including questioning the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the intimation letters all dated 07.01.2023 has to be decided by the third respondent before passing final orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also considering their reply, which they propose to send in due course. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and the intimation letters all dated 07.01.2023 to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order stating the contentions that have been raised in this writ petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under TNGST Act, 2017; Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue intimation letters; Prematurity of writ petition.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Impugned Order under TNGST Act, 2017:
The main issue in this case revolves around the validity of the authorisation dated 21.12.2022 issued under Section 67 of the TNGST Act, 2017 by the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), Erode Division, Erode. The petitioner contends that the reasons for carrying out the inspection were not adequately disclosed by the first respondent. The petitioner argues that the proper officer must provide exact reasons for the inspection, which were allegedly missing in the impugned authorisation. However, subsequent to the authorisation, the second respondent conducted an inspection and issued intimation letters highlighting defects and proposing penalties under Section 74 of the TNGST and CGST Act, 2017.

2. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent to Issue Intimation Letters:
The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the intimation letters dated 07.01.2023, claiming that only the third respondent has the authority to do so. The petitioner asserts that the second respondent lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Despite the inspection and intimation letters, no final orders have been issued yet. The court notes that the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the jurisdictional issue, must be addressed by the third respondent before final orders are passed. The petitioner is directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice and intimation letters to the third respondent within two weeks, allowing for a thorough consideration of the contentions raised.

3. Prematurity of Writ Petition:
The court finds that the writ petition is premature as final orders have not been passed, and the petitioner has not responded to the intimation letters. The court emphasizes that the third respondent must decide on the contentions raised before passing final orders. The petitioner is instructed to submit a reply within two weeks, following which the third respondent is required to pass final orders within four weeks, taking into account the petitioner's contentions. The court dismisses the writ petition, highlighting the need for due process and consideration of all arguments before final adjudication.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the challenges to the impugned order, the jurisdictional issue regarding the intimation letters, and the prematurity of the writ petition. It emphasizes the importance of allowing the proper authorities to consider the petitioner's contentions before reaching a final decision, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the case.