9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 612 - HC - GSTLevy of interest u/s 50 of GST Act - petitioner was unaware of the order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Partial relief granted to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The impugned order which stands quashed in this order shall be treated as Addendum to the show cause notice, which preceded with the impugned order. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Impugned order dated 07.06.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-2018 2. Appeal filed by petitioner against earlier assessment order dated 29.04.2022 3. Levying of interest under Section 50 of GST Enactments 4. Opposing arguments based on time bar and judicial decisions 5. Request for setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh order Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 07.06.2022, which was passed for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. It was noted that an earlier assessment order dated 29.04.2022 for the same year had been appealed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of (ST) Appeal, Madurai, on 07.06.2022, and was pending. The petitioner raised concerns about the subsequent order levying interest under Section 50 of the GST Enactments, indicating a lack of awareness regarding the second assessment order. 2. The petitioner, through their counsel, expressed unawareness of the subsequent order and believed the issue was addressed in the earlier order. They requested an opportunity to explain the case to the respondent. The respondent opposed the Writ Petition, citing it as time-barred and invoking the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 44. Additionally, reference was made to the decision in M/s.Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, suggesting that the appeal remedy may be considered incapable at this stage. 3. After considering arguments from both sides, the judge inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The quashed order was to be treated as an Addendum to the show cause notice, and the petitioner was required to respond within 30 days. Since the tax had already been paid and the dispute revolved around interest, no additional conditions were imposed on the petitioner. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. 4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition with the specified observations, without imposing any costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.
|
