Beverage Manufacturer's GST Challenge Dismissed: Evidence Supports Tax Demand, Statutory Appeal Path Outlined for Petitioner

HC upheld a GST tax demand against an alcoholic beverage manufacturer after reviewing submitted documents and statements. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, noting that the assessing officer considered relevant evidence including license and manufacturing agreements. The petitioner was directed to file a statutory appeal within ten days, with the appellate authority instructed to evaluate the case on merits.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the primary issue of the petitioner challenging an order dated 11.12.2023 on the grounds that the documents submitted by them were disregarded in relation to a show cause notice received for alleged non-payment of GST.

Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, received a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 regarding alleged non-payment of GST. The petitioner replied to the notice on 24.10.2023 and 15.11.2023. The impugned order was issued based on these facts.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that relevant documents, such as the licence and manufacturing agreement, were disregarded while issuing the impugned order, despite the petitioner holding a necessary licence for manufacturing alcoholic beverages.

3. The senior standing counsel for the respondents pointed out that statements of the authorized signatory and managing director were considered in confirming the tax demand. Reference was made to Circular No.160/20/2021-GST regarding the tax implications of job work in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors.

4. The impugned order noted the taxpayer's submissions regarding their registration, excise duty payments, and the nature of their contractual relationships. Statements from the authorized signatory and managing director were taken into account, detailing the operations and tax payments related to the manufacture of alcohol.

5. The assessing officer considered the evidence presented, including the licence, manufacturing agreement, and statements, in drawing conclusions. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, citing the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

6. The writ petition was filed in January 2024, within the limitation period, allowing the petitioner to present a statutory appeal within ten days from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without considering the question of limitation.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing the issues raised by the petitioner and the responses from both parties involved in the case.

---