2023 (11) TMI 1015 - HC - GST

Motor Vehicle Partnership Firm Loses GST Challenge, Court Upholds Rs. 8.27 Crore Demand Order Under Section 107 of CGST Act

HC of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST demand order for Rs.8,27,93,915/- against a motor vehicle partnership firm. The Court found the ... Non-filing of statutory GSTR-3B returns for the months from May 2018 to January 2019 - non-discharge of GST liability - demand in respect of the IGST, CGST and SGST and Cess alongwith interest and penalty - no jurisdiction issue nor violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction, but only exercise limited jurisdiction of judicial review. The order, Ext.P4, passed by the first respondent cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or in violation of the principle of natural justice. The order passed is well within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. There has been full compliance of the principle of natural justice, that the petitioner was afforded opportunities of response to the show cause notice and of having been heard, and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. There are no ground to entertain the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to order u/s 73 of CGST Act, Kerala SGST Act, and Section 20 of IGST Act.2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.Summary:The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed u/s 73 of the CGST Act, Kerala SGST Act, and Section 20 of the IGST Act. The order confirmed a demand of Rs.8,27,93,915/- for IGST, CGST, SGST, and Cess, along with a penalty of Rs.82,79,392/-. The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in motor vehicles, was found to have not filed GSTR-3B returns and discharged their GST liability for the period in question. Despite filing returns and making a deposit, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice demanding the outstanding amount. The Court noted that the order was appealable u/s 107 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner had the option to appeal instead of approaching the Court directly.Regarding compliance with principles of natural justice, the Court emphasized that it only has jurisdiction for judicial review, not appellate jurisdiction. It found that the impugned order was within the first respondent's jurisdiction and complied with natural justice principles. The petitioner had opportunities to respond to the show cause notice and be heard before the order was passed. As such, the Court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within the extended timeline provided by a notification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. Any interim orders granted were also vacated, and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.