The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 for existence of alternative statutory remedy in the form of appeals.
The writ petitioner, Suguna Automobiles deals with two wheelers across inter State borders, entry tax is paid and if this had been taken into account, Input Tax Credit [ITC] would have been available to the writ petitioner. The subsequent submission was that if this had been taken into account, the respondent would not have come to the conclusion that ITC has been wrongly availed by the writ petitioner.
K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned demand order has been made under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) without issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN).
AGP (Taxes) T N C Kaushik submitted that in the course of scrutiny under Section 61 of C-GST Act, notice was issued, writ petitioner responded and the same has been considered.
Learned counsel for writ petitioner entered upon a disputation/contestation with regard to the above submission and submitted that the writ petitioner was not put on notice as regards a personal hearing.
The bench observed, at this instance, noted that the matter is entirely disputed on facts.
Placing reliance on Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C, State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Greatship (India) Limited and a bunch of other judicial pronouncements, the Madras High Court Single bench of Justice M Sundar upheld the alternate remedy rule in this matter and dismissed the writ petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
