M/S. Maan Inc. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Ivan Inc. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1) for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22. The order was passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, confirming certain demands of CGST and SGST, and imposing interest and penalty. The Petitioner contended that the order was passed under the wrong section (74 instead of 73), lacked a DIN number, was a composite order for multiple years, and that prior notice under Rule 142(1A) was not issued. The Respondent argued that Form DRC-01A was issued on 06.09.2021, and the show cause notice dated 28.03.2024 was within the limitation period prescribed by Section 74(10) read with relevant notifications extending the due dates for annual returns.
Held
The High Court, after considering the rival submissions, observed that the Petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the Court. The Court noted that the Petitioner's contention regarding the non-issuance of DRC-01A was incorrect, as the Respondent had pointed to its issuance. Furthermore, the summary of the show cause notice, alleged to be without a DIN number, was not annexed to the writ petition. In light of these circumstances, the Court was not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal as permissible in law. The Court also directed that since the writ petition was filed within the time prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay, taking into account the pendency of the matter before the High Court. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, is invalid due to the absence of a DIN number, as argued by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the composite Order-in-Original for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22 is improper in the eye of law, as contended by the Petitioner? 3. Whether the intimation under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was not issued, rendering the show cause notice invalid, as claimed by the Petitioner? 4. Whether the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, were initiated within the prescribed limitation period, as argued by the Respondent? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, contrary to the Acts, barred by limitation, lacked a DIN number, was passed without prior notice as per Rule 142(1A), and was without jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice. They contended that Section 74 was wrongly invoked instead of Section 73. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent argued that Form DRC-01A was issued prior to the proceedings under Section 74(1). They further submitted that the show cause notice dated 28.03.2024 was well within the time limit prescribed under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, considering the extensions for filing annual returns for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 granted by Notifications No. 6/2020 and 90/2020. The Respondent also pointed out that the Petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 73, Rule 142(1A), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRT APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.2OO64 of 2o25, ORDER: Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel lor the Dctllloner Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent No. 1 N{r. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel for respondent No.2
Fleard learned counsel for the parties
The impugned order-in-original is dated 05.02.2025 passed on the basis of a show cause notice dated 28.O3.2024 whereby the respondent No.1 has dropped certain demands and confirmed certain demands of CGST and SGST in a proceeding under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2OI7 (hereinafter referred to as ,the CGST Act'). [t has also imposed interest liability and penalty upon tlie petitioner.
)
Learned counsel lor the petitioner inter alia has taken a number of qrounds that the order in original dated 05.O2.2025 is not valid in thc cve of 1au. as it does not contain any DIN number. It is further submitted that a composite order in-original has been passed for a number of years r.e., from 20L7-18 tllrl 2021 22 which is not proper in the eye of 1aw. It is further submitted that the intimation under Rule 142(IAl of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Ru1es, 2017 (hereinafter referrcd to as 'the CGST Rules') has not bccn issued. Therefore. the shori causc notice in GST DRCO 1 is not valid in the eye of lau,. Therefore, the impugned order rray be interfered.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has straight away pointed out from paragraph No.11 of the order-in-original dated 05.O2.2025 that DRCO 1A u'as issued on 06.O9.2O2ll in favour of thc petitioner before issuance of the proceedings under Section 7a(l) of the CGST Act. Therefore, that statement is not correct. The writ petition does not annex the intimation in Form DRC0 1A. The summary of the order in DRC07 is also not annexed to the writ petition
J
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has submitted that as per Section T4(IO) read with Sub-section (2) of the CGST Act, the Assessing Officer is under a duty to pass order within a period of five years from the due date of furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which tax is not paid or short paid or ITC wrongly availed or utilised. Sub-Section (2) of Section Z4 of the CGST Act mandates issuance of a notice at least six months prior to the time iimit specified in Sub Section (10) of Section T4 for issuance of the order. It is submitted by reference to the Notification No.6 of 2O2O dated O3.O2.2O2O that the last date for furnishing annual returns for the hnalcial year 2OI7-lB was extended to O7.O2.2O2O. Similarly by Notification No.gO of 2020 dated 28.10 .2O2O , the last date for furnishing alnual returns for financial year 201B 19 was extended up to 31.12.2O2O. Therefore, even for the financial year 2OlT-1g, the order could be passed rvithin five years from the date of firing of the annual returns which is February, 2025. In the instant case, the show cause notice has been issued for all the financial years on 28.03.2024 which is well within the time line prescribed under Section 74(lOl of the CGST Act and read with the - -1 Notification Nos.6 of 2O2O and BO of 2O2O even for financial years 2O 17- 18 and 2O 1B- 19. It is submitted that the petitioner has instead of availing the rcmcdl' of appeal uncler Section 107 of the CGST Act, approached this Court after delay. Therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained. 7 . Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and after taking note of Lhc relevant materials placed on record, rve are of the considered vier,rr that the petitioner has not availed the remedy ol appeal before approaching this CourL. Some of the conten tions of the petitioner that the DRCO 1A was not issued is also incorrect. Moreover, the summary of the show causc notice allegcd to be without DIN number has also not bcen anncxed. In such ciircumstances, this Court is not inclined to invoke its ,"r,rit j uri iction. In such a case, petitioner may have the liberty to prefer an appeal as is permissible in 1au,.
The writ petition r,vas preferred on 02.O5.2025. 9. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed well u,ithin time for preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on 02.O5.2025. Therefore.
the appellate Authority may be directed to condone the delay taking into account the time spent in pursuing the writ petition before this Court.
Accordinglv, it is observed that since the writ pctition rn,as filed ri rthin the time prescribed for filing an appeal under Section i 07 read u,ith Sub-Section (4) of the CGST Act, the appellate authoritv u,ould consider the question of delay taking into account the pendency of the matter before this Court. 1 1. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no ordcr as to costs. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case of the parties Miscellaneous applicatron s pending, if any, sha1l stand cio sed. P. PONNA KRISHNA S STANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER One CC to Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, Advocate [O CI 1 2 J 4 To, One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes (senior standing counsel for CBIC) loPUCl One CC to Sri B. t\/ukherjee, SCIOPUCI Two CD Copies TJ LS
HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 8l0gl?021 ORDER WP.No.20064 of 2OZs DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,27. ; rti .s' ,/.7"* .,,,(. (- ) il 2 4 SEP zn25 -._-:::_._,_-, 1nl* 'sl
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.