9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia, ought to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by law of limitation. After detailed consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that in such circumstances, the writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. It was held ' since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all.' Present is a case where the petitioner did not eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Krati Gaur ORDER 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 02.03.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,84,020/- 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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-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 Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 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 ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
