Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajesh Joysowal
Rajesh Joysowal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. (Oral):
1. Challenging the order dated 11th January 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the show cause issued in form GST DRC – 01 dated 12th April 2023 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018. By referring to the discrepancy no. 2 he submits that when the aforesaid discrepancy was first notified in a proceeding under Section 61 of the said Act in Form GST ASMT 10 intimating short payment of tax on inward supply (RCM) amounting to Rs.176,905/-, the petitioner had duly clarified its position by indentifying payment of tax in form GST DRC -03 dated 6th February, 2020. Consequent thereupon, when the show cause notice was issued by considering the response given by the petitioner, the claim on account short payment of tax was dropped since it was noted that the petitioner had made payment in Form GST DRC – 03 on 6th February 2020. However, since there was outstanding liability by reason of delayed payme
The court ruled that retroactive tax demands must be supported by appropriate show cause notices as per statutory requirements; failure to issue such notices invalidates new assessments.
Show-cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act can coexist for the same tax period if based on distinct grounds, and petitioners must pursue available appellate remedies before see....
The court held that the provisions enabling the denial of Input Tax Credit are within jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for statutory adherence in taxation disputes.
The court emphasized the need to provide taxpayers an opportunity to explain circumstances before finalizing tax assessments, ensuring procedural fairness.
Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration cannot solely deny Input Tax Credit without proper justification and results in a duty on authorities to provide reasoned orders.
Petitioner must substantiate claims of timely payments for input tax credit; authority's findings upheld due to lack of evidence.
The court ruled that inadvertent misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST does not constitute excess credit utilization, especially when no revenue loss occurs.
Taxpayers should not be penalized for genuine errors, and proper officers must consider all relevant records when addressing rectification applications.
A writ petition against a GST demand is not maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the GST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
