2024 (1) TMI 621 - HC - GST

GST Service Classification Dispute: Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Respond and Challenge Tax Authority's Show Cause Notices

M/s. KPR Concrete Readymix Represented by its Managing Partner Shri V. Selvaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Intelligence Salem.

HC examined GST service classification dispute between petitioner and tax authorities. Court declined to interfere with show cause notices, allowing ... Validity of show cause notices - SCN in the nature of an adjudicatory order or not - classification of transportation services - to be classified under SAC 996601 or under SAC 996511? - HELD THAT:- In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, there are limited circumstances in which a show cause notice may be interfered with. The foremost of such circumstances is if the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction. A show cause notice may also be interfered with if no case is made out even assuming that the statements made in the show cause notice are correct - In the case on hand, the dispute revolves around the classification of services provided by the petitioner. In the impugned notices, the respondent has taken the view that the services provided by the petitioner qualify as rental services which are classifiable under the SAC 996601 because of the extent of control exercised by the person availing of the services. Upon examining the notices in Form DRC-01, the replies thereto and the impugned notices, this case does not fall within the limited category of cases in which a show cause notice may be assailed in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:The classification of services under GST and the validity of the show cause notices issued by the respondent.Classification of services under GST:The petitioner contended that transportation services provided should be classified under Services Accounting Code (SAC) 996511, attracting GST at 12%. However, the respondent alleged that the services should be classified under SAC 996601, attracting GST at 18%. The petitioner responded to the notice and provided explanations and relevant documents supporting their classification under SAC 996511.Validity of show cause notices:The petitioner argued that the impugned notices were adjudicatory orders and that classifying their services under a different SAC would be incorrect. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, maintained that the notices were show cause notices and that the petitioner could file statutory appeals if adverse orders were issued. The court noted that interference with show cause notices is limited, primarily if the notice was issued without jurisdiction or if no case is made out even assuming the correctness of the statements in the notice.The court examined the notices, responses, and contentions of both parties. It concluded that the case did not fall within the limited category where interference with a show cause notice is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to reply to the show cause notices and raise objections. The respondent was directed to consider all objections before making a decision. The writ petitions were disposed of, and related matters were closed.