2024 (7) TMI 912 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - it is submitted by the Revenue that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches as the issue has attained finality - HELD THAT - This Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remits the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as the petitioner may have a case on merits. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from its electronic cash register together with the reply to the notice issued prior to the impugned order, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice. It is expected that the final order will be passed within three months thereafter. Needless to state, before passing the order, the petitioner shall be heard - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 28.11.2023 for assessment year 2017-18; Failure to respond to notices and participate in personal hearings; Barred by limitation for filing statutory appeal; Discrepancy in raw material purchase as per GSTR 2A and Input Tax Credit claimed; Request for fresh opportunity to explain difficulties.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 related to the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner failed to respond to various notices, including show cause notice in ASMT 10, notice in GST DRC 01, and personal hearing notices. Consequently, the petitioner did not participate in the personal hearings, leading to the adverse outcome in the impugned order. The petitioner also did not file a statutory appeal in time, which was highlighted as a reason for dismissal by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, citing the issue's finality due to latches.

The respondent contended that filing a statutory appeal at the present time is time-barred, referencing a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Commercial Tax Department incorrectly assumed the petitioner's purchase of a significant quantity of raw materials based on GSTR 2A information, while the actual Input Tax Credit claimed was limited to Rs. 6,88,304. The petitioner sought a fresh opportunity to clarify the discrepancies and present their case.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law, acknowledging the petitioner's potential case on merits. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days, along with a reply to the notice issued prior to the impugned order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, with the expectation of a final order within three months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

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