demand under Section 73
Case Title | M/s Gemini Coach Builders Vs Union of India and Ors |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | M. Nirmal Kumar |
Citation | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 235 HC Madras WPA 13181 of 2022 and 9367 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 24-June-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | V Sukumar |
Council for UOI | S. Ragaventhree |
Council for State | |
Favour | Respondent |
Section | Section 73 of CGST Act,2017 |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Honourable Judge M. Nirmal Kumar has held that Only after response over SCN subsequent to summon, the opportunity of bearing heard shall be provided to taxpayer
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner was earlier issued summons on 15.11.2019, thereby calling for his explanation for some facts. The petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise on 06.12.2019 and gave his explanation in detail. With regard to the question No.13 in Ministry’s F.No.354/17/2018-TRU dated 01.03.2018,the petitioner had given detailed explanation referring to circular No.
52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018, wherein it has been clearly clarified that in case of fabrication of body on chassis provided by the principal (not on account of body builder) the supply would merit classification as service and 18% GST as applicable will be charged. Thereafter, again the petitioner was issued notice under Section DRC-01A, for a short payment of Rs.11,17,33,272/-. The petitioner again given his reply on 14.03.2022. This being so, now the third notice has been issued, for which also the petitioner has given explanation that the department circular No.52/26/2018—GST has clearly clarified that GST applicable on job work is 18% only, which the petitioner has paid
The contention of respondent is that the first respondent issued summons calling the petitioner to give his receipts, produce documents and give his explanation. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner and again the petitioner appeared and given his reply on 06.12.2019, which was considered and thereafter DRC-01A notice has been issued of 2022. The petitioner is now issued with a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner if at all has got any objection to the show cause notice, then his objections will be heard and thereafter only the order in original can be passed. Even before passing any order, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, hence seeks dismissal of the petition.
demand under Section 73
COURT HELD
It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, for which, the petitioner has to give reply and thereafter personal hearing would be given, where he can make his submissions along with supporting documents, thereafter only order in original would be passed and it is the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
In the result, the petition stands dismissed.
demand under Section 73
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The tax payer has to deal with the provisions as contemplated with law subject. Any act or appeal beyond the scope of same is ultravires
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: