9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 291 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - detailed explanation along with the documents submitted by the petitioner through his reply and the impugned order has been passed on 22.11.2023 without following the procedure prescribed u/s 169(1)(a) and 169(1)(b) of the GST Act - petitioner was not served any notice under Section 73 - HELD THAT - The petitioner did not submit any reply but asked for an adjournment by his application dated 16.10.2023, such adjournment was granted on 5.11.2023 and 18.11.2023 was fixed as the next date for submitting explanation. The petitioner did not submit any explanation either through online mode or through person in the office. It was presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say with regard to provisional assessment, moreover, the petitioner was only buying time so that final orders could not be passed within the limitation period of three years as provided under the Act and the Rules, therefore, the impugned order has been passed. It has also been argued that the petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 22/11/2023 passed under section-73 of GST Act. 2. Allegation of not following the prescribed procedure under Sections 169(1)(a) and 169(1)(b) of the GST Act. 3. Petitioner's claim of not receiving any notice under Section 73. 4. Delay in challenging the order dated 22/11/2023. 5. Prayer for direction under Section 108 of the UP GST Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order dated 22/11/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, under section-73 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the detailed explanation and documents submitted were not considered, and the order was passed without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner denied claiming excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) and alleged not receiving any notice under Section 73. The court noted the issuance of a notice for deposit based on wrongly claimed ITC, provision for submitting detailed documents, adjournments granted, and the petitioner's failure to provide any explanation. The court upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the petitioner's attempt to delay final orders within the statutory limitation period. 2. The counsel for the State-respondents highlighted the petitioner's belated challenge to the order dated 22/11/2023 on 14.06.2024. The petitioner, through counsel, limited the prayer to a direction for the respondents to consider any representation under Section 108 of the UP GST Act. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the Act for further recourse. The judgment emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under Section 107 of the GST Act for the petitioner. 3. In conclusion, the court addressed the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the order passed under section-73 of the GST Act. Despite the petitioner's contentions of procedural irregularities and lack of notice, the court found in favor of the respondents based on the timeline of events and the petitioner's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and timelines while also acknowledging the petitioner's right to seek redressal through statutory remedies available under the relevant provisions of the GST Act.
|
