9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 556 - HC - GSTOrder issued u/s 73 (9) of the WBGST CGST Act, 2017 - error in reporting Input Tax Credit on Import of Goods - seeking reconsideration by the proper officer - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in this case there appears to be a bonafide error on the part of the petitioners which aspect has not been considered by the proper officer. However, without going into such issue and taking note of the fact that the consultant engaged by the petitioners had left the job without properly informing the petitioners as regards the proceedings, a further opportunity ought to be provided to the petitioners to bring on record the aforesaid fact and properly explain the aforesaid contention before the proper officer. The order dated 29th August 2023 issued under Section 73 (9) of the said Act is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the proper officer. The petition is disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The petitioners challenge an order issued u/s 73 (9) of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18 due to an error in reporting Input Tax Credit on Import of Goods. The petitioners seek reconsideration by the proper officer. Details of the judgment: 1. The petitioners were served with a show cause notice u/s 73 (1) of the said Act, but they could not access the notice on the portal as their consultant did not convey the information to them. 2. The consultant responsible for monitoring the portal left the job without informing the petitioners, leading to the petitioners discovering the order dated 29th August 2023 passed u/s 73 (9) of the said Act at a later stage. 3. During the filing of GSTR-3B for the financial year 2017-18, an error occurred where Input Tax Credit on Import of Goods was reported in the wrong table. The petitioners seek reconsideration by the proper officer after rectifying the error in their annual returns. 4. The petitioners request an opportunity for reconsideration by the proper officer due to their failure to represent themselves properly and rectify the error. 5. The State's advocate mentions that the order is appealable, and the petitioners have the option to approach the appellate authority. 6. The Court acknowledges a bonafide error on the part of the petitioners and the consultant's role in the miscommunication. It decides to provide the petitioners with a further opportunity to explain the error before the proper officer. 7. The order dated 29th August 2023 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the proper officer for reconsideration. The petitioners are given 10 days to file their response, and the proper officer is directed to dispose of the proceeding within 4 weeks after affording a personal hearing. 8. The petitioners are required to make a payment of Rs. 50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within 10 days and provide proof of payment to the proper officer during the hearing. 9. The writ petition is disposed of based on the above directions and observations. 10. All parties are instructed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the Court's official website.
|
