9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be condoned under the power to condone the delay in filing of the appeal . HELD THAT:- Present is a case where the petitioner did not even file appeal and allowed the order passed in assessment proceedings to become final and thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking to challenge the determination of tax, interest and penalty by the competent authority vide order dated 22.03.2023. Present is not a case where the order under Section 74 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 levying tax along with interest and penalty 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 petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Agarwal with Ms. Neetu Bhansali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta with Ms. Shivalika Srivastava & Ms. Krati Gaur ORDER PER 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness and validity of show cause notice dated 28.10.2022 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 22.03.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 9,19,018/- towards service tax on roya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n facts, that was a case where the assessee did not take recourse to remedy of appeal even though he was duly served with the order of assessment within the statutory period. Without challenging the order in appeal, respondent therein filed an application under Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value 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 wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee beyond the extended statutory limitation period of 60 days in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such. 23. Arguendo, 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petition has averred that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines the cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding 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-fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking to challenge the determination of tax, interest and penalty by the competent authority vide order dated 22.03.2023. Present is not a case where the order under Section 74 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 levying tax along with interest and penalty 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 appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
