GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at taxmann.com .
Exercise of power under Section 63 was erroneous if petitioner was already registered under GST since 1-7-2017: HC
Arupa Nanda Dhal v. Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) [2024] 159 taxmann.com 684 (Orissa)
The petitioner was duly registered under GST Act since 1-7-2017, in spite of same, it was assigned temporary registration by authority with effect from 1-7-2021, on ground that sufficient reason were there to believe that petitioner was required to be registered under GST Act. The another reason appended was that as per data available with WAMIS (Works and Accounts Management Information System) pertaining to period 2019-20, the petitioner received revenue and an assessment order under section 63 was issued by authority. The appeal against said order was also rejected. It filed writ petition against the exercise of power under Section 63.
The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner got to know about the demand only when bank intimated attachment of account for purpose of recovery of demand raised in assessment framed under Section 63. The Court also observed that the Assessing Authority had earlier undertaken assessment under Section 74 and it was well aware of fact that petitioner had been granted registration under GST Act. Therefore, there was no scope for exercise of power under section 63 and thus it was held that exercise of power under section 63 was erroneous.
Matter to remitted back for re-adjudication since hearing was fixed prior to reply furnished by assessee: HC
In the present case, a show cause notice was issued proposing demand against assessee and thereafter order under section 73 was passed against assessee. It filed writ petition and contended that no intimation of hearing was given to assessee and order was cryptic and did not give reasons and it merely stated that reply submitted by assessee was not to be found satisfactory.
The Honorable High Court noted from the records that a hearing was fixed prior to reply furnished by assessee. Moreover, it was mentioned in the impugned order that the reply was unsatisfactory and the assessee had failed to submit substantial proof in support of its reply but didn’t provide hearing opportunity to substantiate its claim or clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
Therefore, the Court held that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity to defend show cause notice by way of hearing. Thus, the Court concluded that the order could not be sustained and matter was liable to be remitted to proper officer for re-adjudication.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from Taxmann.com .
Taxmann.com | Research | GST – Largest Database Redefined
About:
The GST repository features an AI-based search engine designed to recreate and simplify the way you conduct your research—a combination of features that are impeccably specified and tied by a common thread.
? 71,000+ Case Laws with Integration and Headnotes/Case-Digest
? Authentic, Amended & Updated 35+Acts/40+Rules with Annotations & Integration
? 345+ Forms Updated in real-time
? 26,000+ Circulars & Notifications
? 'Notifications in Force' tool for a list of currently effective Notifications
? 'Historical Tariff' tool for checking rates at different periods
? Expert Discourse Hub Featuring 10+ Commentaries and 3200+ Articles
? 22,000+ Answers to Your Practical GST Queries from V.S. Datey et al.
? Real-Time Intelligence Feed that Reports from 1,000+ Authentic Sources
Subscribe Now and Transform the Way You Work! https://taxmann.social/BuGXf