|
2023-TIOL-57-HC-ALL-GST
Limra Developers Vs Addl.Commissioner
GST - Petitioner challenges the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by respondent no.2 cancelling their registration as well as the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the appellate authority upholding such order and dismissing appeal on ground of limitation - Petitioner submits that there is also an alternative provision for filing of revocation application u/s 30 and the period for filing such application was extended by the government till 30 September 2020; that, therefore, the notification extending period for filing of revocation application should be read as an extension of time for filing appeal too.
Held: Court finds that as the GST regime was introduced PAN India in the year 2017, there was some teething problem in its implementation; the government was inviting suggestions and making improvement in the functioning of the provisions of the said Act - Considering the fact that the appeal has been filed at a delayed stage and in between the COVID-19 pandemic had intervened, taking sympathetic view, Court finds that the assessee cannot be left remediless and the appellate authority should have entertained the Appeal and decided the same on merits; that business cannot be hampered and made to suffer on mere technicalities of law - Order passed by the appellate authority is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is set aside - Matter is remitted to the first appellate authority to reconsider appeal on merits within a period of one month - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12]
- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-56-HC-ALL-GST
Skyline Automation Industries Vs State of UP
GST - Petitioner challenges order DRC-07 passed u/s 74(9) of the Act, 2017 - A rgument raised is that in terms of the provisions of Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, 2017 as existing at the time of initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner, before it was amended on October 15, 2020, before passing any order u/s 74, a show cause notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A is required to be issued; that it is only thereafter that the jurisdiction is vested with the Competent Authority to pass order; that in the case in hand, notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A having not been issued, any subsequent proceeding will be without jurisdiction as the petitioner did not have a fair opportunity to respond - Counsel for Revenue, while not disputing the fact that notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued submits that subsequent reminders had given fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place his case before the authority concerned, which he failed to avail of; that the impugned order now passed is appealable under Section 107 of the Act. Held: Admittedly, for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer - Any subsequent reminder will not cure inherent defect in proceedings initiated against the petitioner - As the initiation of proceedings itself are bad, the order passed consequent thereto will also fall - Writ petition is allowed - The impugned notice dated November 10, 2022 is quashed: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT |
|
