2023 (11) TMI 955 - HC - GST

Validity of order passed u/s 74 and GST demand - Intimation of tax liability read with a show cause notice issued u/s 74 of the WB GST Act, 2017 - Requirement of scrutiny of GST returns u/s 61 first - mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - On a reading of the section 74, it is ex facie evident that verification under section 61 of the Act is neither a pre-condition nor a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the Act. The opening words where it appears to the proper officer clarifies that it is the appropriate officer who has to form a prima facie opinion prior to initiation of proceedings. In this case, from the records itself it appears that there is an apparent mismatch between FORM GSTR-7 and FORM GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner - In this case, the petitioner despite having received notice as regards the intimation of tax GST DRC-01A and the subsequent show cause notice failed to respond to the same. An assessee cannot choose to ignore all notices and steps taken by the respondent authorities who are now bound to act in a time bound manner under the Act and thereafter take the plea of natural justice. The unreported decision cited in Prabhu Dayal Jajoo vs. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Budge Budge Charge and Ors. 2023 (6) TMI 830 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT is inapposite. In this case, the show cause notice had been uploaded on a different portal and this fact was unknown to the petitioner. However, in the facts of this case the impugned notices had been uploaded in the same portal under the link Additional Notices and Orders which the petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of. There is no illegality nor perversity nor infraction of law nor procedural impropriety which warrants any interference with any of the impugned orders and steps taken pursuant thereto - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The grievance against tax liability, show cause notice under section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, final order dated 9 December, 2022, and consequential notice of bank attachment dated 22 June, 2023.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an intimation of tax liability, show cause notice, and final order under section 74 of the Act, alleging lack of verification of returns, invalidity of unsigned notices, and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner contended that the intimation of tax was wrongly uploaded in the GST portal and no personal hearing was granted. Section 74 of the Act outlines the procedure for serving notices and initiating proceedings for tax evasion. The court noted that verification under section 61 is not a pre-condition for initiating proceedings under section 74. The petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices was deemed untenable as the notices were uploaded on the GST portal and communicated via email. The court emphasized that notices uploaded on the portal are authenticated digitally, and the petitioner had the opportunity to respond but chose not to. The court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to engage with the proceedings and lack of grounds for interference. The court distinguished previous decisions cited by the petitioner, emphasizing the sufficiency of notice and opportunity for representation under the Act. Ultimately, the court found no illegality or procedural impropriety to warrant interference with the impugned orders.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.