Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (5) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e notice dated 29.10.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RGST Act, 2017')/the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act, 2017') for financial year 2018-19 as also order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,33,966/- towards service tax on royalty, interest and penalty. 2. Though number of grounds have been urged in the writ petition as also before this Court to assail the correctness and validity of aforesaid show cause notice as also order dated 13.03.2023, learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance copy, broug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alue Added Tax Rules, 2005, highlighting certain errors in raising the demand based on incorrect turnover reported by the assessee. The application having been rejected, an appeal was filed. Finally, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the assessment order. The appeal against the assessment order was dismissed being barred by limitation and also because no sufficient cause was made out. Thereafter, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking quashment and setting aside of assessment order on various grounds including the ground that it was contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. Prayer was also made to carry out fresh assessment. The writ petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... guendo, reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is noticed that the respondent had asserted that it was not aware about the passing of assessment order dated 21.6.2017 although it is admitted that the same was served on the authorised representative of the respondent on 22.6.2017. The date on which the respondent became aware about the order is not expressly stated either in the application for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority, the affidavit filed in support of the said application or for that matter, in the memo of writ petition. On the other hand, it is seen that the amount equivalent to 12.5% of the tax amount came to be deposited on 12.9.2017 for and on behalf of respondent, without filing an app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inding has not been examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that the respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional amount in terms of the previous order passed by it. That reason can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. Notably, the respondent had relied on the affidavit of the Site Director and no affidavit of the concerned employee (P. Sriram Murthy, Deputy Manager-Finance) or at least the other employee [Siddhant Belgaonker, Senior Manager (Finance)], who was assoc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, he was issued show cause notice and thereafter, impugned order was passed. In the writ petition, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the remedy of statutory appeal. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner consciously did not choose to take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/the CGST Act, 2017, but waited for the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal as also the maximum period of delay which could be condoned in the exercise of powers conferred upon the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 107 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates