Mr. Harichandan, advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the impugned is show-cause notice dated February, 2024 carrying purported finding of misstatement made by his client, to underpay the tax issued under sub-section (l) in section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision was invoked to avail extended period of limitation but there was no allegation of misstatement in the show cause notice.
Read More: Karnataka HC Quashes Penalty for Non-Deduction of TDS on Professional Advice
The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017’s Section 74 addresses situations in which taxes are not paid, paid in full, or incorrectly refunded, or in which input tax credits (ITCs) are improperly used or obtained as a result of fraud, deliberate misrepresentation.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
As such, there has been jurisdictional error, which goes to root of impugned order, the division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo set aside on interference. He also seeks interim protection. Mr. Satapathy, advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submitted there is clear finding of the misstatement. Rate of tax was willfully applied at a lower rate. Considering submission of jurisdictional error going to root of impugned order, there is requirement for the writ petition to be heard .
A jurisdictional error under GST arises when a tax authority initiates proceedings or takes action beyond its legally defined area of authority. If a state GST officer issues a notice for a case under the Central GST jurisdiction, or vice versa. If a lower authority handles a case meant for a higher authority. If an officer from a different state or region issues a notice. When a case related to a regular taxpayer is handled under the composition scheme.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
