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>Court Upholds Minimum 30-Day Response Time Rule for Notices Under GST Act</h1> <h3>Sheetal Dilip Jain Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.</h3> Sheetal Dilip Jain Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 11 (Bom.) , [2023] 108 G S.T.R. 244 (Bom) Issues:1. Time period for replying to a notice under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Validity of the order issued with a short notice period.3. Consequences of issuing orders without proper application of mind.4. Imposition of costs on Respondents and directions for payment to PM Cares Fund.5. Training and orientation for authorities regarding legal provisions and principles of natural justice.Issue 1:The primary grievance raised in the Petition was regarding the time period for replying to a notice under Section 73 of the MGST Act. The Petitioner argued that a minimum of 15 days should be given to reply. The Respondent agreed that the 7-day notice period given was contrary to the MGST Rules, 2017, and stated that a minimum of 15 days should have been provided. The Court, in agreement with the Petitioner, emphasized that Section 73(8) of the MGST Act allows a person chargeable with tax a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment or file a reply. The Court held that this statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer.Issue 2:The order issued with a short notice period was deemed erroneous as only 7 days were given to reply to the notice, leading to the passing of the impugned order on the 8th day. The Respondent, acknowledging the error, was instructed to withdraw the impugned order dated 10th March 2022. The Court emphasized the importance of applying the basic provisions of the Act and Rules to prevent unnecessary burden on the judicial system and highlighted the hardships faced by the general public due to such illegal orders.Issue 3:The Court expressed concern over the consequences of issuing orders without proper application of mind, emphasizing the need for officers to understand the impact of their actions on the public. To address this issue, the Court ordered the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a donation to the PM Cares Fund within two weeks. Additionally, the Court directed the CBIC and the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, to conduct training sessions to educate officers on the law, rules, and principles of natural justice to prevent meritorious cases from being defeated on technicalities.Issue 4:The Court imposed costs on the Respondents and directed them to make a donation to the PM Cares Fund as a form of penalty for the erroneous order issued. The Court emphasized the need for authorities to be sensitive to the impact of their orders on the public and stressed the importance of accountability and efficiency among officers to facilitate the Government's vision of ease of doing business in India.Issue 5:In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition, highlighting the need for authorities to be mindful of the consequences of their actions on the public and urging them to conduct training sessions to enhance their understanding of legal provisions and principles of natural justice. The Court's observations were made in the broader context of improving the efficiency and accountability of officers to promote ease of doing business in India.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
