Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
- 0 - Views

Issuance of SCN under GST

Date 01 Jan 2018
Written By
Taxpayer Criticized for Excess Payment: Court Slams Arbitrary Show Cause Order Under CGST Sections 73(5) & 73(6)
In a case before the Madras High Court, a taxpayer faced a show cause notice and adjudication order despite having paid the disputed tax and interest. The Additional Commissioner issued the order without proper discussion or findings, and a rectification application was dismissed. The Department claimed the payment did not match their demand. The court criticized the order as arbitrary and harassing, noting the taxpayer's payment exceeded the demand. Under GST law, specifically Sections 73(5) and 73(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, a taxpayer can avoid a show cause notice by paying the tax and interest and informing the proper officer. - (AI Summary)

In R.S. Senthilkumar v. Additional Commissioner of S. T., Chennai-II, 2017 (7) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where show cause notice issued and adjudication order passed despite the fact on record that assessee already having paid impugned tax with interest. Adjudication order passed by Additional Commissioner without discussion and findings, and rectification application filed with records indicating payment, also dismissed. In counter affidavit of Assistant Commissioner filed the writ petition against adjudication order, Department stated the amount paid by assessee did not match with demand raised by them.

The High Court held that Adjudication order should have referred to payments by the assessee and their bank statements should have been called. It was the cryptic and arbitrary order passed to harass assessee. It was more so as payment made by the assessee was more than demand.

Use of this judgment under GST:

  • Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.
  • Section 73(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
  • Accordingly, the proper officer shall not issue show cause notice to the person if such person pays tax amount along with interest to the Government and intimate to the proper officer.
0 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Recent Articles