2023 (3) TMI 825 - HC - GST

Writ petition challenging Section 73(5) liability intimation dismissed as premature without final outcome

SL Automobiles Private Limited Versus The State of Tripura, The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, The Commissioner of Taxes & Excise, Tripura, The Superintendent of State Taxes, Agartala, The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes, Government of Tripura

Tripura HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a liability intimation under Section 73(5) as premature and not maintainable. The petitioner sought to ... Maintainability of writ petition - without final outcome of the proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition - Validity of authorization for inspection and search - failure to produce any valid document regarding the mode of business operation of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Annexure XIII, dated 25.08.2021, which is under challenge in this writ petition, clearly shows that if the petitioner fails to submit any response/reply to the liability intimated under Section 73(5) of the Act to this writ petition in Part-B within the time stipulated, in that case, Show-Cause notice will be issued against the petitioner. Thus, it is aptly clear that Annexure XII (dated 25.08.2021) is not a show-cause notice, which the petitioner prays to quash in this writ petition. Moreover, the proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner is pending and without any outcome of the proceeding, the petitioner had approached this court. This court feels that the present writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is at the pre-mature stage, and accordingly, the same is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The petitioner has expressed that the petitioner has already paid the taxes, and he is not liable to pay any further tax and with regard to the consideration, the tax authorities have not considered in its entirety. The writ petition is premature and not maintainable, and therefore, stands dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include challenging the authorization for inspection and search, subsequent order of seizure and order of prohibition, and intimation of tax ascertained as being payable issued by the State Tax authorities. The main contention is whether IGST or CGST and SGST are payable for an inter-state sale of Honda motorcars.Authorization for Inspection and Search:The petitioner challenged the authorization for inspection and search, seizure order, and tax demand issued by the State Tax authorities. The petitioner, a dealer of Honda motorcars, claimed the transaction was an inter-state sale and only IGST was payable. The authorities believed CGST and SGST were due for a local sale, resulting in the seizure of motorcars and a demand for Rs. 1,28,37,517/- in unpaid CGST and SGST. The petitioner argued against double taxation and the legality of the actions taken.Contentions of the Parties:The petitioner's counsel argued for the inter-state nature of the sale, emphasizing the obligation to pay only IGST and challenging the legality of the seizure and tax demand. The Additional GA contended that the actions were lawful as the petitioner had not fulfilled tax liabilities and failed to provide necessary business operation documents. It was argued that the writ petition was premature as proceedings were ongoing.Judgment and Dismissal:The court reviewed the submissions and records, noting the intimation of tax payable and the pending proceedings. The court found the writ petition premature and dismissed it, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The petitioner was granted the option to seek dispensation of the tax demand through an application, subject to consideration by the revisional authority. The court held that the demand for Rs. 1,28,37,517.43 was not immediately payable, providing relief to the petitioner in terms of further tax liability.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition as premature, allowing the petitioner to seek relief through the appropriate channels. The judgment highlighted the need for further assessment and consideration of the petitioner's tax liability, providing an avenue for appeal and potential dispensation of the tax demand. The dismissal was based on the premature nature of the petition and the ongoing proceedings, granting the petitioner the opportunity to address the tax issues through proper legal channels.