2024 (7) TMI 1110 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - levy of 100% penalty - HELD THAT - The impugned orders are passed under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, do not call for any interference in the hands of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference is limited with wide powers. There are no extenuating reasons in this case for extending olive branch to the petitioner. Suffice to state that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to went out his grievances before the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the respective GST enactments. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under TNGST Act, 2017 for multiple assessment years. Petitioner's submission of being a small-time building contractor, payment of disputed tax with interest, and challenge against 100% penalty. Request for reduction of penalty citing a previous court decision. Argument for reading down provisions of Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017. Respondent's contention of lack of merit in the writ petitions. Respondent's argument of time-barred petitions and appellate remedy. Judicial review of impugned orders under GST enactments. Scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Comparison with a previous court case regarding Input Tax Credit. Dismissal of writ petitions with liberty to file statutory appeal within 30 days.

Detailed Analysis:

The petitioner challenged assessment orders under the TNGST Act, 2017 for various assessment years, citing being a small-time contractor and payment of disputed tax with interest. The petitioner contested the 100% penalty levied, arguing it was excessive and referred to a previous court decision for penalty reduction. Additionally, the petitioner sought to read down the provisions of Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017.

The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the writ petitions, claiming they lacked merit and should be dismissed. The respondent argued that the petitions were time-barred, referencing a Supreme Court decision regarding latches and the time limit for appellate remedy.

The court, after considering arguments from both sides, found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the impugned orders passed under the respective GST enactments. The court emphasized the limited scope for reducing penalties contrary to Section 74 of the GST enactments and highlighted the petitioner's opportunity to address grievances before the Appellate Authority.

In comparing the present case with a previous court case involving Input Tax Credit, the court noted differences in the tax payment timing, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions. The court allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days while closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.