Failure to Follow Procedure under Rule 142 (1A) of OGST Rules concludes the Deposit of Tax: Orissa HC [Read Order]
Follow Procedure – OGST Rules – Deposit of Tax – Orissa HC – GST – Orissa High Court – TAXSCAN
Follow Procedure – OGST Rules – Deposit of Tax – Orissa HC – GST – Orissa High Court – TAXSCAN
The High Court (HC) of Orissa has held that the tax demanded can’t be Contested when Assessee failed to follow the procedure under Rule 142 (1A) of OGST Rules.
Shri D. Murali Mohan Patanaik, the petitioner challenged the notice dated 19th February 2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST which required him to produce the documents related to stock retention and vehicles used in the generation of e-way bills for inward and outward supplies as well as to the intimation dated 31st March 2022 of the tax ascertained as payable under Section 73 (5) of the Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act) including liability under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST Act) for the period October 2018 to March 2019, April 2019 to February 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021.
The Petitioner is a registered dealer and he is a distributor of “Grasim Cement” for the Koraput District. It is stated that four vehicles loaded with ‘Grasim Cement’ were detained by the authorities asking for the production of documents. It was stated that payment of the demanded tax was made “on protest to release the detained vehicle”, the fact remains that no such letter recording any ‘protest’ has been produced before this Court.
Under Rule 142 (1A) and (2A) of the OGST Rules, it was open to a person against whom a demand is raised to make a ‘partial payment’ and also to “file any submissions against the proposed liability” in Part-B of Form-GST DRC-01A. The Petitioner did not opt for the above procedure.
Justice M.S. Raman observed that if the Petitioner wanted to contest the demand raised, he ought to have adopted the procedure already outlined under Rule 142 (1A) of the OGST Rules. He did not opt for that procedure for reasons best known to him. Also, to date, he has not registered any protest with the Department which ought to have been made contemporaneous with the payment.
Three months after making such payment, he sent a vague letter contending that the liability is “not acceptable” here nor there since the Petitioner had already made the full payment of the tax demanded.
While dismissing the petition, the Court held that “since there is no material to support the contention of the Petitioner that he made payment of the demanded tax under protest, the Court is not persuaded to accept such submission at this stage.”
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
