TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Wins Temporary Relief Against GST Recovery as Court Questions Procedural Violations Under Sections 73(1) and 16(4)</h1> <h3>M/s Unity Infraprojects Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner of State Taxes, Ranchi, The State Tax Officer, Urban Circle, Dhanbad</h3> M/s Unity Infraprojects Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner of State Taxes, Ranchi, The State Tax Officer, Urban Circle, Dhanbad - ... Issues:1. Discrepancies in GST return for the period April 2018 to March 2019.2. Allegations of interpretation of Section 16(4) of the JGST Act and denial of ITC.3. Levy of interest without prescribed rules for computation.4. Failure to issue show-cause notice under Section 73(1) before levying tax, interest, and penalty.5. Violation of principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under Section 73 of the Act.6. Issuance of garnishee notice to petitioner's bank for immediate payment.Analysis:1. The petitioner's GST return for April 2018 to March 2019 showed discrepancies, leading to an intimation of tax payable under Section 73(5)/74(5) of the JGST Act. The petitioner contended that denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on Section 16(4) was misconceived, citing relevant judgments in support.2. Regarding the levy of interest, the petitioner argued that interest computation rules were absent, making the levy unworkable. It was emphasized that interest should start post adjudication of the demand, especially when the liability is disputed. The petitioner highlighted the necessity of a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) before imposing penalties.3. The adjudication order issued without following the principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under Section 73 was challenged. The petitioner referenced specific judgments, including one related to the initiation of recovery proceedings without proper adjudication on interest disputes.4. The petitioner sought relief from coercive actions following the issuance of a garnishee notice to their bank for immediate payment. The petitioner argued that without issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 73(1), coercive steps for recovery should not be taken. The court granted time for the State to file a counter affidavit and restrained coercive actions until further hearing.5. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and legal requirements in tax matters, emphasizing the need for proper adjudication and issuance of show-cause notices before imposing tax, interest, or penalties. The court's decision to prevent coercive actions without proper legal basis reflects a commitment to upholding natural justice principles in tax disputes.
TaxTMI 