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>Extended period demand notices under Section 74 can be reconsidered under Section 73 for Amnesty Scheme benefits</h1> <h3>M/s SREE BALAJI PAKAGING INDUSTRY Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERIATE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL TAX AUDIT-I COMMISSIONERATE, BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX</h3> M/s SREE BALAJI PAKAGING INDUSTRY Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:1. Whether Section 146 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, and Notification No.21/2024 - Central Tax, which extend the waiver of interest and penalty only to notices issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are unconstitutional and ultra vires.2. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice and Order-In-Original issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be quashed and treated as if issued under Section 73, thereby extending the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act.3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme as per the provisions of Section 128(A) of the CGST Act.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Constitutionality of Section 146 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, and Notification No.21/2024- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 146 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, and the related notification, arguing they are ultra vires as they selectively extend benefits only to notices under Section 73 of the CGST Act.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not delve deeply into the constitutional question, as the petitioner opted to pursue the Amnesty Scheme benefits, which rendered the broader constitutional challenge less immediate.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court focused on the petitioner's request to avail the Amnesty Scheme, thus setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration under Section 73.2. Quashing of the Show Cause Notice and Order-In-Original- Relevant Legal Framework: The petitioner sought to quash the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 and have it treated under Section 73, which would allow access to the benefits under Section 146 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court accepted the petitioner's submission to avail the Amnesty Scheme and set aside the impugned order. It directed the matter to be reconsidered by respondent No.5 under Section 73, allowing the petitioner to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the petitioner's intention to apply for the Amnesty Scheme, which was a pivotal factor in setting aside the order and remitting the matter.- Application of Law to Facts: By treating the proceedings under Section 73, the Court facilitated the petitioner's access to the Amnesty Scheme, aligning with the petitioner's revised legal strategy.3. Entitlement to Amnesty Scheme Benefits- Relevant Legal Framework: Section 128(A) of the CGST Act provides for the Amnesty Scheme, which offers certain benefits to taxpayers under specified conditions.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application for the Amnesty Scheme, respondent No.5 must consider it in accordance with law, thereby acknowledging the petitioner's eligibility to apply for such benefits.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court's order facilitates the petitioner's opportunity to secure the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme by remitting the matter for reconsideration under the appropriate section of the CGST Act.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Core Principles Established: The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for taxpayers to avail themselves of statutory schemes like the Amnesty Scheme when eligible.- Final Determinations on Each Issue:i. The impugned Order-in-Original was set aside, and the matter was remitted to respondent No.5 for fresh consideration under Section 73 of the CGST Act.ii. The petitioner is allowed to file an application for the Amnesty Scheme, and respondent No.5 must grant the benefits if the application is filed and meets the legal requirements.iii. The Court left all rival contentions open, expressing no opinion on unresolved aspects, thereby preserving the rights of the parties for future adjudication if necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
