2023 (10) TMI 864 - HC - GST

Court Quashes Order, Directs Respondent to Address Petitioner's Concerns Within 30 Days, Ensures Hearing Opportunity.

Bhumana Ramachandra Reddy Versus Union of India,

The HC quashed the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the 4th respondent, for violating the Court's directions. It directed the 3rd respondent to ... Demand of interest - delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns - illegal suo moto migration effected by the respondent-Department - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute with regard to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 27336 of 2022 [2022 (6) TMI 1437 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT ], wherein this Court specifically directed the 3rd respondent i.e., Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad, to consider the representations of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also an admitted fact that impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is not passed by the 3rd respondent i.e., Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad, but was passed by the 4th respondent i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, on the direction of the 3rd respondent, which is per se contrary to the specific direction issued by this Court. The impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, who passed the impugned order despite specific objection taken by the petitioner in his written submissions that 4th respondent lacks legal authority to consider the representations in the light of specific directions issued by this Court to the 3rd respondent. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the suo moto migration of the petitioner's GST registration.2. Delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and the resultant interest demand.3. Jurisdiction and authority of the officer passing the impugned order.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of Suo Moto MigrationThe petitioner, a sole proprietor of M/s. RC Reddy IAS Study Circle, contended that the 5th respondent office illegally effected suo moto migration to the GST system by using their own mobile number and email ID, violating Rule 24 of CGST Rules, 2017. This unauthorized action prevented the petitioner from filing monthly returns due to the inability to receive the One Time Password (OTP) required for login.Issue 2: Delay in Filing GSTR-3B Returns and Interest DemandDue to the incorrect mobile number and email ID, the petitioner faced delays in filing returns from September 2017 to January 2019, despite making several representations and visits to the respondent department. The petitioner continued to make online payments towards CGST and SGST liabilities, which were reflected in their cash ledger. However, the 5th respondent demanded interest for the delay, issuing a garnishee order to the petitioner's bank for Rs. 30,07,927/- under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Authority of the Officer Passing the OrderThe petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, arguing that it was passed by the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, who lacked the legal authority as per the Court's direction in W.P. No. 27336 of 2022, which specifically instructed the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, to consider the representations. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner is not a 'Commissioner' as defined under Section 2(24) of CGST Act, 2017, and thus, the impugned order was contrary to the Court's specific directions.Conclusion:The High Court set aside/quashed the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the 4th respondent for being in violation of the Court's directions. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within 30 days, duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.