Babul Nath VS Union Of India

The case in question involves a petitioner who is a registered dealer under various GST Acts. During the proceedings, Shri D. Saraf, the petitioner’s counsel, and Shri P.K. Dhar, learned Senior Government Advocate representing respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, along with Mr. B. Majumder, learned Counsel General of Customs appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, presented their arguments for the final disposal of the petition.

The crux of the matter revolves around a notice issued by the Superintendent of GST on May 13, 2019, highlighting discrepancies in the petitioner’s declaration of outward supply. This discrepancy forms the central issue to be resolved.

The petitioner, being a registered dealer under various GST Acts, is subjected to scrutiny regarding the accuracy and consistency of their outward supply declarations. The notice served by the Superintendent of GST indicates that there are inconsistencies in these declarations, prompting further examination and legal action.

Both the petitioner’s counsel and the representatives of the respondents present their respective arguments and evidence to support their positions during the final disposal of the petition. This stage marks the culmination of the legal proceedings, where all parties involved present their case before the adjudicating authority for a final decision.

Given the complexity of GST laws and regulations, along with the specific details of the discrepancies in the petitioner’s declarations, the proceedings are likely to involve a thorough examination of relevant legal provisions, documentation, and precedents to arrive at a just conclusion.

The case delves into the response of the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under various GST Acts, to a notice issued by the Superintendent of GST on May 13, 2019. This notice highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner’s declarations of outward supply for the financial years 2017-2018 in the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B forms.

In their reply dated July 3rd, 2019, the petitioner explained that an outward supply worth Rs. 4,57,92,600/- (rounded off) shown in GSTR-1 was inadvertently not reflected in GSTR-3B. However, the petitioner rectified this error by including the supply in GSTR-3B for the month of March 2019, accompanied by payment of the corresponding tax amounting to Rs. 54,95,112/-.

This explanation serves as the petitioner’s defense against the discrepancies highlighted in the notice. Both parties, represented by Shri D. Saraf for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Dhar, along with Mr. B. Majumder for the respondents, likely presented their arguments during the final disposal of the petition.

The resolution of this case hinges on whether the explanation provided by the petitioner is deemed satisfactory by the adjudicating authority, considering the applicable GST laws and regulations. The final decision will be reached after a thorough examination of all relevant legal provisions, documentation, and arguments presented by both sides.

Following the notice and subsequent response from the petitioner regarding the discrepancies in their GST declarations, the Superintendent passed an order on October 4, 2019, demanding the tax amount of Rs. 54,95,111/- along with penalty and interest. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner chose to challenge it before the appellate authority.

However, the appeal faced a setback as the appellate authority dismissed it via an order dated February 1, 2021. The dismissal was on the grounds that the petitioner failed to provide a certified copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

This turn of events underscores the importance of procedural compliance in legal matters. Despite the petitioner’s attempt to contest the Superintendent’s order, the failure to furnish the necessary documentation led to the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate authority.

Now, the case likely shifts its focus to whether the petitioner can rectify this procedural lapse and pursue further legal recourse, possibly through additional submissions or appeals. The outcome will depend on the petitioner’s ability to address the deficiencies in their previous attempts to challenge the tax demand, penalty, and interest imposed by the tax authorities.

In response to the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal by the appellate authority due to the failure to provide a certified copy of the order passed by the Superintendent, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had indeed submitted a copy of the order as supplied to them by the Superintendent. Any defects in this copy were beyond the petitioner’s control to correct. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of a defective copy was deemed unjustifiable.

Moreover, the counsel emphasized that the Superintendent demanded tax, interest, and penalty based on the observation that the petitioner had allegedly failed to respond to the notice. This implies that the petitioner’s appeal dismissal due to a defective copy submission was procedurally flawed.

Fundamentally, the counsel contended that dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of filing a defective copy was inappropriate. The crux of the matter rests on whether the petitioner’s compliance with providing the order copy, albeit defective, should have led to the dismissal of the appeal, or if there were grounds for leniency considering the circumstances surrounding the submission.

This argument suggests a procedural error in the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, highlighting the need for a fair and thorough review of the case’s details and procedural requirements by the adjudicating authority,

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: