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>GST proceedings upheld after assessee fails to respond to show cause notice under Section 74(9)</h1> <h3>M/s Modern Steel Versus Additional Commissioner And Another</h3> M/s Modern Steel Versus Additional Commissioner And Another - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are (1) whether personal hearing should have been given to the petitioner before the order was passed by respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 74, and (2) whether the period of limitation in filing the appeal stood extended pursuant to the 52nd Meeting of the GST Council held on 7th October, 2023 and if the benefit should be passed on to the petitioner.Issue 1: Personal HearingThe petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under the UPGST Act and CGST Act, was issued a notice under Section 74(1) of the Act on 17.02.2022, regarding a dispute for the period June 2019, Financial Year 2019-20. The Taxing Authority passed an order imposing penalty and interest on 22.03.2022, which was appealed by the petitioner but dismissed on 11.08.2023 due to delay. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was provided before the final order was passed, citing relevant case laws. However, the Court found that as the petitioner did not reply to the notice, the provisions of Section 75(4) requiring an opportunity of hearing were not attracted, and hence, the order was upheld.Issue 2: Extension of Limitation PeriodThe petitioner argued that the period of limitation for filing the appeal should be extended based on the decision of the 52nd Meeting of the GST Council. The Court noted that the appeal did not provide sufficient grounds for condoning the delay, and as per Section 107(4) of the Act, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal due to the expired limitation period. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that the Act is a special statute with an inbuilt mechanism excluding the application of the Limitation Act. However, considering the GST Council's extension of the limitation period till 31st January 2024 under an amnesty scheme, the Court remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for reevaluation.ConclusionThe Court found no interference necessary in the notice issued by respondent No.2 on 17.02.2022 and the consequential order passed on 22.03.2022. However, the appellate order of 11.08.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration, especially regarding the limitation period in light of the GST Council's amnesty scheme. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
TaxTMI 