Home GST Kerala High Court Cancels Order Due to Violation of Section 75(4) of CGST Act

Kerala High Court Cancels Order Due to Violation of Section 75(4) of CGST Act

0
Kerala High Court Cancels Order Due to Violation of Section 75(4) of CGST Act

Kerala HC's Order for Julie Jose

An evaluation order handed with out affording a private listening to beneath Part 75(4) of the Items and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017 has been dismissed by the Single Bench of the Kerala Excessive Court docket.

The present writ petition has been submitted by Julie Jose, who’s topic to the Central Items and Service Tax (CGST) and State Items and Service Tax (SGST) rules, contesting an evaluation order made beneath Part 73 of the Kerala GST Act.

The only real argument offered within the writ petition is that the petitioner was not granted a required listening to alternative, as stipulated in Part 75 of the GST Act. The Authorities Pleader didn’t contest this argument made by the petitioner’s Counsel.

The petitioner had urged a private listening to relating to the end result of the challenged order itself. Regardless of this request, the evaluation was carried out beneath Part 73 of the Kerala GST Act with out offering an opportunity for a private listening to.

Part 75(4) of the GST Act specifies {that a} listening to alternative must be granted when a written request is acquired from the person responsible for tax or penalties, or when an adversarial choice is being thought-about towards them.

Learn Additionally: Allahabad HC Cancels Order Handed U/S 75(4) With out Listening to Alternative to Petitioner

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh of the Court docket famous that there had been a violation of Sub-Part 4 of Part 75 of the GST Act. Consequently, the challenged order has been annulled, and the matter has been referred again to the primary respondent for the issuance of a brand new evaluation order after giving the petitioner a chance for a private listening to.

The Court docket directed the petitioner to seem earlier than the State Tax Officer on September 20, 2023, to current their case relating to the Present Trigger Discover issued for finalizing the evaluation order. It was emphasised that no separate discover for the listening to could be issued to the petitioner. Harisankar V. Menon represented the petitioner, whereas Jasmine M. M. served because the Authorities Pleader for the respondents.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here