2020 (12) TMI 1043 - HC - GST

Petitioner challenges GST order citing jurisdiction issues, interest liability, and natural justice principles

HAV Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar, The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

The petitioner sought relief through a writ to quash an order under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing jurisdictional challenges and ... Permission to withdraw the present petition - power under section 50 read with section 75(12) of Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to file a fresh petition on the same and subsequent cause of action. Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Issues involved:Petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash an order under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, jurisdictional challenge, applicability of interest under section 50, sufficiency of credit balance in electronic credit ledger, liability of interest in case of tax liabilities discharged from cash ledger, relief sought based on judgment of Madras High Court.Analysis:The petitioner sought relief through a writ or order of certiorari to quash an order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the respondent under sections 75(12) and 50(2) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order and consequential demand notice were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction and was unsustainable in law. The petitioner also claimed that the assessing authority could not have passed the order without the necessary jurisdictional facts as per the act, seeking a declaration to quash the order based on the judgment of the Madras High Court regarding the liability of interest under section 50.The petitioner further contended that interest should not be attracted if the credit balance in the electronic credit ledger was sufficient to cover the tax liabilities admitted in the returns. Moreover, the petitioner asserted that if tax liabilities were already discharged under section 39(7) of the act, no interest liability should arise under section 75(12). The petitioner relied on the Madras High Court judgment to support these contentions, emphasizing that interest under section 50 should only apply when tax liability is discharged from the cash ledger.During the proceedings, the learned Standing Counsel No. 11 electronically transmitted documents to the petitioner's counsel, who then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one based on the same or subsequent cause of action. The court granted the liberty to do so and disposed of the present petition as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to mention the matter for early listing if needed. Any interlocutory applications were directed to be disposed of accordingly.