9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who has to form a prima facie opinion prior to initiation of proceedings. In this case, from the records itself it appears that there is an apparent mismatch between FORM GSTR-7 and FORM GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner - The practice of entertaining writ petitions challenging legality of show cause notices inevitably result in stalling enquiries and retarding the investigative process meant to find the real facts with the participation and presence of the parties is to be deprecated. An assessee cannot choose to ignore all notices and steps taken by the respondent authorities who are bound to act in a time bound manner under the Act and thereafter take the plea of natural justice. The unreported decision cited in Prabhu Dayal Jajoo vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged that an unsigned notice was issued without verification of returns under section 61 of the Act and in violation of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. Thereafter, on 15 January, 2021 the respondent no. 4 issued an unsigned show cause notice under section 73 of the Act and a summary notice in FORM GST DRC-01. 3. The primary grievance of the petitioner in respect of the impugned proceedings and notices is that prior to issuance of the intimation of tax in FORM GST DRC-01, the respondent authorities failed to verify the returns as contemplated under section 61 of the Act. The intimation of tax as communicated to the petitioner is unsigned and thus invalid in law. There has also been violation of Rule 26(3) of the WBGST Rules, 2017. Moreove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax. (4) The service of statement under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be service of notice under sub-section (1) of section 73, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon in the said statement, except the ground of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, for periods other than those covered under subsection (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice. (5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous refund. (11) Where any person served with an order issued under sub-section (9) pays the tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to fifty per cent. of such tax within thirty days of communication of the order, all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. 5. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is ex facie evident that verification under section 61 of the Act is neither a pre-condition nor a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the Act. The opening words where it app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner were neither signed nor authenticated. Any notice issued and uploaded in the GST Portal is automatically authenticated by way of digital signatures. The name and designation of the officer is usually reflected therein. In any event, there are adequate safeguards in section 74(9) of the Act itself which provide for an opportunity to every assessee to submit a representation to the proper officer in case of any grievance. It appears from the records that despite receipt of a notice regarding intimation of tax and a subsequent show cause notice, the petitioner wilfully and deliberately neglected to submit any representation and chose to ignore all such steps taken by the respondent authorities. 7. The practice of entertaining writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemicals vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [2022] 136 Taxmann.com 275 (Allahabad) also does not consider the true import and purport of section 75(4) of the Act vis a vis section 74. The said decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as the Court had come to a finding that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. Similarly, the decision in Sarbari Intra Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (2023) 10 Centax 92 (Mad) is also distinguishable. 9. In such circumstances, there is no illegality nor perversity nor infraction of law nor procedural impropriety which warrants any interference with any of the impugned orders and steps taken pursuant thereto. 10. For the foregoing reasons, WPA 1866 of 2023 stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
