Patna HC Refuses to Interfere in GST Dispute Under Writ Jurisdiction, Cites Availability of Statutory Appeal Before Tribunal [Read Order]
The bench noted that the impugned orders do not violate the principles of natural justice, and this Court finds no jurisdictional error committed by the respondent authorities
The Patna High Court refused to interfere in the GST dispute under writ jurisdiction, citing the availability of a statutory appeal before the tribunal, as the bench did not find scope of interference with the impugned orders in the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction
In this case, the assessee, M/s Suraj Agency, had filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes for the financial year (FY) 2018-19. The assessing officer (AO) had passed an exparte order in which a a total liability of Rs.44,42,848, with a breakup as (a) tax worth Rs.22,89,337, (b) interest worth Rs.19,24,959, and (c) penalty worth Rs. 2,28,552, has been imposed on the petitioner.
It was contended by the petitioner that the order was passed ex parte without considering the stand of the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner that the assessee did not consider the GSTR-9, which is the final return submitted by the petitioner in respect to the difference in turnover, which was wrongly declared in the December 2018 month GST return due to clerical error/typographical mistake.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the assessment for the aforesaid period was carried out on the basis of disparity in turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-09 related to the petitioner.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice, due to which an interest and penalty amounting to Rs.4,442,848 was imposed.
The high court noted that the AO issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why the total tax amount of Rs.22,89,337, including IGST, CGST, and SGST amounts of Rs.3813, Rs.11,42,762, and Rs.11,42,762, should not be recovered with interest under Section 50 of the CGST/BGST Act.
After going through the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, the bench noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the tribunal, and still, the petitioner approached the HC in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The bench noted that the impugned orders do not violate the principles of natural justice, and this Court finds no jurisdictional error committed by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the scope of interference with the impugned orders in the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to entertain the present writ application.
The High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, dismissed the appeal and held that the petitioner was at liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
