9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 989 - HC - GSTExcess tax demand compared to SCN - amount mentioned in the show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 is much less - Sub-Section (7) of Section 75 of Uttarakhand Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The State concedes that the impugned order is not as per the provision contained in Sub-Section (7) of Section 75 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the demand raised by the impugned order is much more than the amount indicated in the show cause notice. Impugned order date 06.11.2023 is quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 73(9) of Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for excess tax demand compared to show cause notice.
The petitioner, a Company paying tax under State GST, challenged an order dated 06.11.2023 passed u/s 73(9) of Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding &8377;91,95,708/- as tax, interest & penalty. The challenge was based on the discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) which was &8377;27,06,340/- and the ordered amount. The petitioner contended that the order was unsustainable as per the provision in Sub-Section (7) of Section 75 of the Act, which restricts the demanded amount to not exceed the notice amount and grounds specified therein. During the proceedings, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand acknowledged that the impugned order did not align with the provision in Sub-Section (7) of Section 75 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was admitted that the demand in the order surpassed the amount indicated in the show cause notice, thus not complying with the statutory requirement regarding the limit of tax, interest, and penalty to be demanded. Considering the arguments and the legal provisions, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 06.11.2023. The Court directed the Proper Officer to initiate proceedings de-novo, emphasizing the need for adherence to the statutory mandate. It was further stipulated that the final order by the Proper Officer should be issued within four months, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Statute.
|
