2020 (12) TMI 741 - HC - GST

Court dismisses petition challenging GST orders under Section 129(3) UPGST Act, emphasizes procedural compliance

M/s Libra International Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of orders under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act and GST DRC07 dated 18.9.2020. The ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention on the ground that the goods in question were being transported without E-Way Bill - HELD THAT:- We may take note of the fact that implementation of the GST regime has brought about a major reform in the field of indirect taxation and all key aspects starting from registration till filing of the return, raising of e-way bill, filing of the refund claim, passing of an order creating demand of tax and penalty, rectification of the order, etc. are dependant on a technology driven process with regard to which the necessary procedure is provided under the Rules. The relief claimed in this regard in terms of relief clause (I), would be barred by laches; moreso, in the light of the fact that the petitioner claims to have deposited the entire amount of tax and penalty determined under the said order, and by virtue of the deeming provision under subsection (5) all proceedings in respect of the notice specified under subsection (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. As regards the prayer for quashing the summary of the order uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC07 dated 18.9.2020, as under relief clause (II), we may observe that in the event the petitioner has actually made payment of the entire amount due towards tax and penalty referred to in the notice issued under subsection (1) of Section 129, he may submit proof thereof before the authority concerned and apply for rectification/withdrawal of the said order. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of order under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act2. Validity of GST DRC07 order dated 18.9.20203. Barred by laches4. Deeming provision under subsection (5) of Section 129Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of order under Section 129(3) of UPGST ActThe petitioner's goods and vehicle were intercepted for transporting goods without an E-Way Bill. An order was passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, specifying tax and penalty payable. The petitioner claims to have deposited the amount but received another order in FORM GST DRC07 in 2020. The respondent argues that the 2018 order is final and the writ petition is time-barred. The State respondent suggests applying for rectification if the payment was made.Issue 2: Validity of GST DRC07 order dated 18.9.2020The order uploaded in FORM GST DRC07 in 2020 specifies tax, interest, and penalty payable. Rule 142(5) mandates electronic upload of such orders, treating them as notices for recovery. The mechanism allows for rectification or withdrawal of orders, with proper officer uploading details in FORM GST DRC08.Issue 3: Barred by lachesThe court notes that the challenge to the 2018 order is belated, and relief sought under clause (I) is time-barred due to laches. Since the petitioner claims to have paid the tax and penalty, proceedings under subsection (5) of Section 129 are deemed concluded.Issue 4: Deeming provision under subsection (5) of Section 129The deeming provision under subsection (5) of Section 129 concludes proceedings upon payment of the amount referred to in subsection (1). The court dismisses the writ petition, suggesting the petitioner apply for rectification or withdrawal of the 2020 order if payment was made.The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the procedural rules under the GST regime and utilizing technology-driven processes for various tax-related matters. It clarifies the options available to the petitioner regarding challenging the orders and highlights the significance of timely actions in legal proceedings.