Writ petition filed before attaining Finality in Authorization for inspection and search issued by Additional Commissioner of State Taxes amounts to Premature and not maintainable: Tripura HC

Writ - petition - Authorization - Additional - Commissioner - of - State - Taxes - Tripura - HC - TAXSCAN

The Tripura High Court (HC) has held that the writ petition filed before attaining finality in the authorization for inspection and search issued by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes amounts to Premature and not maintainable.

SL Automobiles Private Limited, the petitioner has challenged the “authorization for inspection and search” dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes, Tripura, respondent no. 5, as well as subsequent order of seizure and order of prohibition, dated 25.06.2221 issued by the Superintendent of State Taxes, Agartala.

The petitioner is a dealer of Honda motorcars having its head office in Guwahati and a branch office in Agartala. Upon an order placed by a local customer for delivery of the car, the petitioner sent the vehicle from Guwahati to Agartala by way of a branch transfer but upon payment of full IGST.

The State GST authorities believed that not IGST but CGST and SGST were payable since this is an incident of local sale. The Superintendent of State Tax seized the three motorcars which were lying in the showroom of the petitioner at Agartala. The Superintendent of State Tax, on 25.08.2021 issued a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act and passed an intimation/order asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,37,517/- by way of unpaid CGST and SGST with interest and penalty.

The petitioner submitted that seizing the vehicles of the petitioner and directing him to may payment of Rs. 1,28,37,517/- along with interest and penalty is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the memo dated 25.06.2021 and the notice dated 25.08.2021 passed within the ambit of law since the petitioner had not discharged his actual tax liability in filing Returns.

Further argued that the petitioner failed to produce any valid document regarding the mode of business operation of the petitioner and stated that without the outcome of the proceeding initiated by respondent no. 4, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition which is at its premature stage. A Coram comprising of Justice Arindam Lodh observed that the present writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is at the pre-mature stage, and is not maintainable. The appeal got dismissed

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Related Stories