The delay tactics of the GST payer- Resort company was criticised by the Allahabad High Court. After hearing the submissions of the respondent’s counsel, the court had made strong disapproval on the time-buying nature of the assessee.
The assessee, M/S Buddha Resorts Pvt. Ltd filed a writ petition seeking to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax under section 73 of GST Act, 2017.
Another prayer was Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party no. 2, not to give effect to the order dated passed under section-73 of GST Act and to reconsider the case of the petitioner, lawfully after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing.
The assessee- petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has not considered the detailed explanation along with the documents submitted by the petitioner through his reply and the impugned order has been passed on 22.11.2023 without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 169(1)(a) and 169(1)(b) of the GST legislation.
The petitioner in his representation had mentioned that he has not claimed any excess Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) and the petitioner was not served any notice under Section 73 as alleged in the impugned order.
From the reading of the order, the High Court bench of Justices Shree Prakash Singh and Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra observed that the petitioner was initially issued a notice under Section 73(8) for the deposit of an amount based on wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).
The notice included a provisional assessment and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned authority on October 16, 2023, at 11:00 AM with all relevant documents if dissatisfied with the provisional assessment. However, the petitioner did not submit any reply and requested an adjournment on October 16, 2023.
The adjournment was granted, and November 18, 2023, was set as the new date for submitting an explanation.Despite this extension, the petitioner failed to provide any explanation, either online or in person.
Consequently, it was presumed that the petitioner had no objections to the provisional assessment and was merely delaying the process to prevent the final orders from being issued within the three-year limitation period specified by the GST Act and the Rules. As a result, the impugned order was passed. It was also noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Furthermore, the GST State respondents’ counsel pointed out that the order dated November 22, 2023, was challenged by the petitioner belatedly on June 14, 2024.
The petitioner’s counsel has limited his request to seeking a direction for the respondents to decide on any representation made by the petitioner under Section 108 of the UP GST Act. Thus, the high court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the GST statute.
Onkar Pandey and Arjun Gupta appeared for the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
