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>Judicial Review Upholds Taxpayer Rights: SCN Procedural Defects Invalidate Tax Assessment Under CGST Section 73</h1> <h3>Bablu Rana (Trade Name M/s. Tara Trading Co.) Versus Proper Officer SGST Ward -24 Zone -1 & Anr.</h3> HC allowed the petition challenging an order under Section 73 of CGST Act. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the ... Time limit specified under Section 73 (10) of the CGST Act for passing an order under Section 73 (9) of the CGST Act - N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 - HELD THAT:- The GST Authorities have since addressed the issue and have re-designed the portal to ensure that ‘View Notices’ tab and ‘View Additional Notices’ tab was placed under one heading. However, it is not disputed that the impugned SCN was issued before the GST portal was re-designed. The present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside - The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:Impugning an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, limitation of the impugned SCN, accessibility of uploaded SCN, compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act, impact of earlier court decisions on the present case.Impugning Order under Section 73 of the CGST Act:The petitioner challenged an order dated 18.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, following a show cause notice dated 22.09.2023. Additionally, the petitioner contested Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73 (9) for the year 2017-18 until 31.12.2023. The petitioner argued that the impugned SCN was time-barred.Validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax:The petitioner disputed the validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, which extended the time limit for issuing orders under Section 73 (9) of the CGST Act. The notification was issued under the authority of Section 168A of the CGST Act, and the petitioner raised concerns regarding its impact on the impugned order.Limitation of the Impugned SCN:The petitioner contended that the impugned SCN was barred by limitation. The petitioner, a sole proprietor registered with the GST Authorities, argued that the SCN was not easily accessible as it was uploaded under 'Additional Notices and Orders' instead of the appropriate category of 'Notices and Orders.'Compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act:The issue of compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act arose, with reference to the uploading of notices on the portal. The petitioner highlighted a previous decision of the court, emphasizing that mere uploading of a notice under 'Additional Notices' did not constitute sufficient service as per the Act.Impact of Earlier Court Decisions:The parties acknowledged that the present issue was addressed in previous court decisions, including the case of ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India. The court had previously rejected arguments similar to those raised by the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of proper categorization and accessibility of notices on the portal.In a detailed analysis, the court considered the petitioner's challenges regarding the impugned order under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax. The petitioner's claim of the impugned SCN being time-barred was also examined. The court noted discrepancies in the accessibility of the uploaded SCN and the categorization on the portal, emphasizing the importance of proper placement for effective communication with taxpayers.Moreover, the court delved into the compliance aspect with Section 169 of the CGST Act, citing a previous decision that highlighted the significance of correct notice placement for taxpayer intimation. The impact of earlier court decisions, particularly ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, was acknowledged, indicating a consistent approach in addressing similar issues. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the SCN within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
