9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1033 - HC - GSTSeeking quashing of SCN and subsequent tcorrigendum - non-compliance with mandatory requirements of Rule 1A of Rule 142 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - A keenest perusal of the SCN and subsequent thereto corrigendum, thus candidly unfolds that all the detailings of the tax liabilities as contemplated under the 'GST Rules of 2017', become ad nauseum detailed therein, besides they are detailed with utmost clarity, thereby the petitioner-assessee became fully enlightened with the facts, which he is required to be contesting. Resultantly thereby there would be the fullest opportunity to the assessee-petitioner to ably contest the facts relating to its purportedly omitting to liquidate its tax liabilities to the department. In sequel, thereby there is no breach to the principles of natural justice. As but a natural corollary thereto the exception, whereby on proof thereof, the assessee-petitioner, even without availing the alternative remedy of his appealing against the impugned Annexures, could redress his grievances, through his instituting a writ petition before this Court, rather are not satisfied at all. This Court at this stage, finds no merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. However, liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the impugned Annexures, before the Appellate Authority concerned - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of show cause notice dated 21.05.2024 issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Quashing of corrigendum dated 30.05.2024. 3. Compliance with Rule 1A of Rule 142 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 4. Determination of whether the show cause notice and corrigendum are in derogation of mandatory requirements. 5. Examination of the maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of Show Cause Notice Dated 21.05.2024 The petitioner sought the quashing of the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the GST Act for the financial year 2019-20. The respondent did not dispute the issuance of the notice concerning the petitioner’s tax liabilities for the said financial year. The court examined the mandatory compliance required under Rule 1A of Rule 142 of the GST Rules, 2017, which mandates that before serving a notice, the details of any tax, interest, and penalty must be communicated in Part A of Form GST DRC-01A. Issue 2: Quashing of Corrigendum Dated 30.05.2024 The petitioner also sought the quashing of the corrigendum issued to correct calculation errors in the original show cause notice. The corrigendum detailed the revised tax liabilities, interest, and penalties, correcting the earlier figures. Issue 3: Compliance with Rule 1A of Rule 142 of the GST Rules, 2017 The court emphasized that Rule 1A of Rule 142 is couched in mandatory phraseology, requiring strict compliance by the Department of Revenue. The court noted that the provisions necessitate the communication of details of any tax, interest, and penalty before serving the notice. Issue 4: Determination of Whether the Show Cause Notice and Corrigendum are in Derogation of Mandatory Requirements The court analyzed whether the issuance of the show cause notice and the corrigendum violated the mandatory requirements of Rule 142 (1A) and whether there was an open defiance of the judgment by the Madras High Court in a similar case. The court concluded that there was no jurisdictional defect in the issuance of the show cause notice and that the details were adequately communicated to the petitioner. Issue 5: Examination of the Maintainability of the Writ Petition Despite the Availability of an Alternative Remedy The court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court referenced the principles set forth in judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which outline exceptions where a writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. These exceptions include instances where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment, has acted in defiance of fundamental judicial procedures, has invoked repealed provisions, or has violated principles of natural justice. Final Order: The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, reserving the petitioner’s liberty to avail the alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the impugned notices before the Appellate Authority. The court directed that if the appeal is time-barred, an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be considered, and the appeal should be registered and decided within two months after hearing all affected persons. No order as to costs was made, and all pending applications were disposed of. Conclusion: The court upheld the issuance of the show cause notice and corrigendum, emphasizing the mandatory compliance with Rule 142 (1A) of the GST Rules, 2017. The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner directed to pursue the alternative remedy of a statutory appeal.
|
