CGST Act Discrepancies Addressed, Payment in Installments Emphasized

The court addressed discrepancies between show-cause notices under Section 74 and summary of orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner's request for re-fixing monthly installments and adjusting Input Tax Credit was considered. The court directed no coercive action against the petitioner, emphasizing payment in installments. A preliminary issue of maintainability under Section 107 of the CGST Act was raised, with further proceedings scheduled. The court's interim directions aimed to safeguard the petitioner and address the issues raised in the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assailing show-cause notices under Section 74 of CGST Act and summary of orders under Section 73.
2. Discrepancy between show-cause notice and summary of order.
3. Lack of opportunity of hearing in adjudication.
4. Request for re-fixing monthly installments and adjusting Input Tax Credit.
5. Preliminary issue of maintainability under Section 107 of CGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged two show-cause notices under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with two summary of orders passed under Section 73 of the same Act. The discrepancy arises as the demand in the summary of orders was stated to be created under Section 73, while the show-cause notices were issued under Section 74. The petitioner contended that consequences of not filing returns timely should be dealt with under Sections 46 and 62 of the Act. Additionally, the lack of opportunity for a hearing was highlighted as a ground for the writ petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the tax dues were allowed to be paid in 12 monthly installments, which the petitioner is complying with. An interim prayer was made to re-fix the monthly installments by adjusting the Input Tax Credit and proportionately reducing tax or penalty. The court took note of this projection and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next returnable date, emphasizing the importance of the disputed tax being paid in installments.

3. The Standing Counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department raised a preliminary issue of maintainability under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court, while keeping this issue open, issued a notice of motion returnable on a specified date. The respondents' counsel accepted the notice, and the court directed the petitioner to furnish extra copies of the writ petition to the counsel by a specified date.

4. In conclusion, the court addressed the various aspects raised in the writ petition, including discrepancies in the application of different sections of the CGST Act, lack of opportunity for a hearing, and the petitioner's request for adjusting monthly installments. The court's interim directions aimed to ensure no coercive action against the petitioner and set a future date for further proceedings.

---