GST demand proceedings under section 74 valid without prior verification under section 61 requirement

The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to GST demand proceedings under section 74 of WB GST Act, 2017. The court held that verification under section 61 is not a precondition for initiating section 74 proceedings, as the proper officer only needs to form a prima facie opinion. Despite apparent mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B returns, the petitioner failed to respond to GST DRC-01A intimation and subsequent show cause notice. The court ruled that an assessee cannot ignore statutory notices served through the designated portal and later claim natural justice violations. The application was dismissed finding no illegality or procedural impropriety.

---

---

Issues involved:
The grievance against tax liability, show cause notice under section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, final order dated 9 December, 2022, and consequential notice of bank attachment dated 22 June, 2023.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an intimation of tax liability, show cause notice, and final order under section 74 of the Act, alleging lack of verification of returns, invalidity of unsigned notices, and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner contended that the intimation of tax was wrongly uploaded in the GST portal and no personal hearing was granted. Section 74 of the Act outlines the procedure for serving notices and initiating proceedings for tax evasion. The court noted that verification under section 61 is not a pre-condition for initiating proceedings under section 74. The petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices was deemed untenable as the notices were uploaded on the GST portal and communicated via email. The court emphasized that notices uploaded on the portal are authenticated digitally, and the petitioner had the opportunity to respond but chose not to. The court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to engage with the proceedings and lack of grounds for interference. The court distinguished previous decisions cited by the petitioner, emphasizing the sufficiency of notice and opportunity for representation under the Act. Ultimately, the court found no illegality or procedural impropriety to warrant interference with the impugned orders.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.

---