CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Consolidation of Adjournment in GST Proceedings

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:49:50 +0000

In the legal matter of Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. against Senior Joint Commissioner [WPA No. 3092 of 2024 dated March 1, 2024] at the Calcutta High Court, the petition was resolved, establishing that an adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) cannot be merged with an adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST.

Facts of the case:

Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is a cooperative society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973. It operates in collecting parking fees. The Petitioner received an SCN on September 12, 2023, from the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner responded to the notice. Subsequently, a Final Order dated November 6, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) was issued, determining the tax liability under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act.

The Petitioner, dissatisfied with the Impugned Order, filed a writ petition alleging inadequate opportunity for a hearing.

Issue:

Whether adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act can be clubbed together with adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST?

Held:

The Calcutta High Court, in the case of WPA No. 3092 of 2024, made the following determinations:

It was observed that under sub-section (5) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, the proper officer may grant adjournment upon sufficient cause shown, with written reasons. However, such adjournments should not exceed three times during the proceedings.
It was reasoned that adjournments granted to the Petitioner concerning proceedings under Section 61 of the CGST Act should not be combined with SCN proceedings. Thus, the Petitioner had adequate opportunities to respond to the SCN issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act.
The communication dated February 15, 2024, regarding tax recovery was deemed unsustainable and subject to annulment.
It was directed that the Petitioner must submit a response to the SCN, and the Respondent should schedule a personal hearing accordingly.

Validity of Assessment Orders in Light of Assessee’s Response

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:01:20 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. 1622 of 2024, February 27, 2024], addressed the issue of the validity of an assessment order when the Assessee’s response hadn’t been duly considered. The court emphasized the importance of taking into account the Assessee’s reply before issuing an assessment order. It was highlighted that if further details were needed, it was the responsibility of the Revenue Department to request them from the Assessee.

Facts of the case:

The case stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 24, 2023, issued by the Revenue Department against Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. The notice accused the Assessee of under-declaring output tax, claiming excessive Input Tax Credit (ITC), and claiming ITC from canceled dealers and non-taxpayers. The Assessee responded to the notice with a detailed reply. However, the subsequent order dated December 29, 2023 (Impugned Order), found the Assessee’s reply unsatisfactory and directed further action without adequately considering the response.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around whether an assessment order lacking consideration of the Assessee’s response could be deemed valid.

Held:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P. 1622 of 2024 outlined the following key points:

Emphasized the obligation of the Proper Officer to thoroughly assess the Assessee's reply before forming an opinion on its sufficiency.
Noted the failure of the Proper Officer to seek additional details from the Assessee if deemed necessary, rather than dismissing the response outright.
Criticized the lack of evidence suggesting that the Proper Officer had indeed reviewed the Assessee's submission.
Set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the case back to the Proper Officer for reconsideration.

Assessment Order not sustainable when vague in nature

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:37:30 +0000

In the legal case of Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), as documented in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024 dated February 26, 2024, the Madras High Court responded by granting the writ petition. This decision was based on the assertion that the Assessment Order lacked clarity and proper justification.

Facts of the case:

Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. initiated a writ petition contesting an assessment order issued on December 31, 2023 (referred to as “the Impugned Order”), which centered around disparities between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B and that reflected under GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that the Impugned Order, issued by the Revenue Department (referred to as “the Respondent”), lacked specificity. The sole observation noted in the Impugned Order was the rejection of the petitioner’s response.

Held:

The Madras High Court, in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024, overturned the Impugned Order. The court held that the order lacked specificity, which was the basis for confirming the demand for tax, interest, and penalty. The High Court directed that the matter be reconsidered and a fresh order issued after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Consolidation of Adjournment in GST Proceedings

category

Validity of Assessment Orders in Light of Assessee’s Response

category

Assessment Order not sustainable when vague in nature

category