Taxpayer's claim of full tax demand payment vs authority's extra pre-deposit for de novo adjudication; orders partly remanded.

The dominant issue was whether the tax authority could insist on further pre-deposit for de novo adjudication when the taxpayer asserted that the confirmed tax demand had already been fully recovered/paid. The HC held that, if full recovery/payment is established, no additional pre-deposit is required for the de novo proceedings arising from the impugned order; the taxpayer must file a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice with supporting documents, treating subsequent orders as an addendum. Separately, the challenge to the assessment order was rejected on merits, resulting in dismissal of that part, while the remaining impugned orders were set aside and remanded subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether the order imposing a general penalty for late filing of returns, without imposing late fee under Section 47 of the GST enactments, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

2) Whether the remaining assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, which were preceded by show cause notices to which no replies were filed, should be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, and if so, on what conditions including pre-deposit/adjustment and consequential lifting of bank attachment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Interference with the general penalty order relating to late filing of returns

Legal framework: The Court considered the imposition of "General Penalty" for late filing of GST returns and noted the absence of late fee under Section 47 of the respective GST enactments in the same order.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned order imposed a general penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for late filing, while no late fee under Section 47 had been imposed. On that basis, the Court held that the order, as passed, did not merit interference. The Court accordingly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to disturb that order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty order dated 28.08.2024 was dismissed.

Issue 2: Remand of the Section 73 assessment orders, conditional pre-deposit/adjustment, reply to show cause notice, and lifting of bank attachment

Legal framework: The Court dealt with assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, preceded by show cause notices in Form GST DRC-01, and addressed conditions for remand including deposit of a portion of disputed tax/interest and directions relating to bank account attachment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had not responded to the relevant show cause notices by filing replies and had therefore "suffered" the impugned orders. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 50% of the disputed tax (and, as applicable, the disputed interest) and sought remand. Recording this willingness, the Court quashed the impugned Section 73 orders and remitted the matters for fresh orders on merits, subject to a 50% deposit condition. The Court further addressed the contention that one demand had already been fully recovered/paid, holding that if the demand stood recovered, no further pre-deposit would be required for that order and any recovered amount would be adjusted towards the required pre-deposit. The Court also directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice (with documents), treating the quashed orders as an addendum to the show cause notice for de novo adjudication. Consequentially, the Court ordered lifting/vacation of bank account attachment subject to compliance with the deposit condition and absence of arrears for other years, with automatic vacation upon compliance; and it allowed recovery action to proceed if the petitioner failed to comply, as if the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Conclusions: (i) The Section 73 assessment orders dated 22.08.2024, 24.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 (other than the penalty order addressed separately) were quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. (ii) Remand was conditioned on deposit of 50% of the disputed tax (and the relevant disputed interest), with adjustment of any amount already recovered/paid, and no further deposit required if the entire demand had already been recovered. (iii) The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice with supporting documents, treating the earlier orders as an addendum. (iv) Bank account attachment was directed to be lifted/vacated upon compliance and subject to no other-year arrears, with automatic vacation upon compliance; non-compliance permitted the authorities to proceed with recovery in accordance with law.

---