Excise Tax Order Upheld: DRC-07 Challenge Dismissed, Procedural Compliance Confirmed Under IGST/CGST Regulations HC quashed the challenge to the Form DRC-07 order issued by Excise and Taxation Officer. The court found the order was appealable and granted the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Excise Tax Order Upheld: DRC-07 Challenge Dismissed, Procedural Compliance Confirmed Under IGST/CGST Regulations
HC quashed the challenge to the Form DRC-07 order issued by Excise and Taxation Officer. The court found the order was appealable and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue legal remedies. Respondents' replies indicated proper procedural steps were followed, and no substantive violation of IGST or CGST Act, 2017 was established.
Issues involved: The quashing of order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar on the grounds of lack of power under IGST and contradiction with Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Details of the Judgment:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, arguing that the officer had no authority under IGST to issue such a notice. The challenge was based on the contention that the order contradicted Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as the demand raised exceeded the demand proposed in the notice Form DRC-01.
Upon notice of the petition, replies were filed by respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 separately. Respondent No.4 stated that the proper officer of the State had already issued a notice on 06.12.2018. Respondent No.4 did not summon the petitioner again, as the proper officer of the Sale Tax was informed accordingly. Respondents No.1 to 3 mentioned that the Excise and Taxation Officer had passed the order dated 22.07.2019, which was appealable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner was not in touch with him. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of at this stage, as the grievance regarding respondent No.4 initiating similar proceedings did not hold, as per the reply filed by respondent No.4. The order dated 22.07.2019 was deemed appealable. The petitioner was granted the liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with the law.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
