2024 (7) TMI 801 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - time limitation - HELD THAT - It is not required to dilate on the taxability on the supplies made by the petitioner, under the new regime with effect from 01.07.2017, under the respective GST enactments. The matter may require some consideration on merits. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing as such cannot be considered. However, the balance interest of the petitioner and the Department, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders by remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders confirming specific amounts; Time-barred nature of Writ Petitions; Applicability of appellate remedy time limits under GST enactments.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitions challenged assessment orders confirming specific amounts demanded by the respondent. The petitioner's club was inspected by the Intelligence Wing, and after explanations were provided, show cause notices were issued by the Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that demands should be dropped based on previous court decisions. However, the Government Advocate argued that the petitions were time-barred, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding laches. Additionally, the appellate remedy was deemed time-barred under GST enactments, as per Supreme Court rulings.

The Court acknowledged the settled law but refrained from delving into the taxability of supplies under the new GST regime. Instead, it decided to remit the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days for the cases to be reconsidered. The impugned orders were set aside, to be treated as addendum to the show cause notices. The petitioner was given 30 days to respond, and the respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within two months, after the deposit was made. The petitioner's right to be heard before the new orders were passed was emphasized.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.