Assessee directed to raise all contentions while responding to the GST show cause notice.

By | January 28, 2025

Assessee directed to raise all contentions while responding to the GST show cause notice.

Summary in Key Points:

  • Issue: Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of a seizure order and subsequent proceedings on the grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 67 of the GST Act.
  • Facts: The assessee challenged a seizure order, arguing that the procedure under Section 64(2) was undertaken without complying with the requirements of Section 67(1), which deals with inspection, search, and seizure. The revenue department contended that the communication merely provided an opportunity for hearing.
  • Decision: The High Court held that the assessee could raise all permissible objections, including those related to Section 67(1), while responding to the show cause notice. Since the communication only provided an opportunity for hearing, the court found no need to interfere at this stage.

Decision:

The High Court ruled in favor of the revenue department, disposing of the writ petition with specific directions. The court clarified the following:

  • Opportunity to Raise Objections: The assessee has the right to raise all permissible objections, including those related to the procedural requirements of Section 67(1), while responding to the show cause notice.
  • No Interference at This Stage: Since the communication in question merely provided an opportunity for a personal hearing after noting discrepancies, the court found no reason to interfere at this stage.
  • Disposal with Liberty to Raise Contentions: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to raise all their contentions regarding the validity of the proceedings during the adjudication process.

Important Note: This case highlights the importance of following proper procedures during inspection, search, and seizure under the GST Act. It also emphasizes the assessee’s right to challenge the validity of such proceedings and raise objections during the adjudication process. This decision ensures that assessees have a fair opportunity to present their case and defend their rights in GST proceedings.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vaishan Traders IV
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
C.M. Poonacha, J.
WRIT PETITION NO.106841 OF 2024 (T-RES)
NOVEMBER  20, 2024
Vishwanath Hegde and Smt. Tanuja Hegde, Advs. for the Petitioner. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA for the Respondent.
ORDER
C.M. Poonacha, J.- The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(a)To issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-11-2024 bearing No.DCCT(Enf-1)/HBL/INS-78/2023-24, issued by first respondent marked at Annexure-A, Order of Seizure marked at Annexure-B and the summon dated 6-2-2024 bearing No.DCCT(Enf-1)/HBL/INS-78/2023-24/b-, issued by first respondent marked at Annexure-D in the interest of justice.
(b)Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. It is forthcoming that pursuant to a search conducted under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an order of seizure dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-B) was issued as also a mahazar dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-C) was drawn and summons dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-D) was also issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, a communication dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure-A) has been issued whereunder the petitioner has been notified of the discrepancies that have been noticed by the official respondents upon verification of the documents produced by the petitioner consequent to the seizure conducted by the official respondents. Vide the said communication dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure-A), after the discrepancies as noticed by the official respondents have been set out, the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and was required to appear on 22.11.2024 at 11.00 a.m. with the documents.
3. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri. Vishwanath Hegade appearing for the petitioner that the procedure under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act has been undertaken without section 67(1) of the KGST Act having been complied and hence, it is sought to be contended that the action initiated by the official respondents consequent thereto is without authority of law.
4. Per contra, the learned AGA Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath appearing for the official respondents justifies the action taken by the official respondents and further contends that the communication dated 12.11.2024 is merely a notice affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to appear and no hardship would be caused to the petitioner if he appears before the official respondents pursuant to the said communication dated 12.11.2024.
5. Having heard the contentions of both the learned counsels and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the indulgence as requested by the petitioner is not required to be granted since vide communication dated 12.11.2024 the petitioner has merely been afforded an opportunity of hearing after the official respondents have set out the discrepancies as noticed by them. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to respond to the discrepancies as notified in the communication dated 12.11.2024. While responding to the same, it is open to the petitioner to take all contentions permissible under law including the contentions with regard to Section 67(1) of the KGST Act that has been urged in the present writ petition.
6. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com