Gian Chand Subhash Chander vs. State Of Punjab And Ors.
Held
The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the final demand exceeded the amount in the initial notice, which was contrary to Section 75(7) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue acknowledged that a supplementary notice was issued after the initial one. In light of the petitioner's legal objection and the revenue's submission, the Court found merit in setting aside the impugned order. The revenue proposed to issue a fresh show cause notice for a fresh demand, to which the petitioner had no objection. The Court disposed of the petition on these terms, effectively allowing the revenue to re-initiate the demand process.
Facts
The petitioner, Gian Chand Subhash Chander, challenged an order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the State Tax Officer-cum-Proper Officer. This order held the petitioner liable to pay ₹1,36,56,685/- as tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner's primary contention was that the final demand exceeded the amount specified in the initial notice issued, violating Section 75(7) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab, acknowledged that a supplementary notice was issued seeking further information after the initial notice. The revenue agreed to set aside the impugned order if liberty was granted to issue a fresh show cause notice for a fresh demand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the final demand raised by the State Tax Officer-cum-Proper Officer, exceeding the amount specified in the initial notice, is permissible under Section 75(7) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the final demand could not exceed the amount stated in the initial notice, citing Section 75(7) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue contended that a supplementary notice was issued after the initial notice, seeking additional information. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the interpretation of Section 75(7) but agreed to a fresh show cause notice if the impugned order was set aside.
Sections Cited
Section 75(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 21.01.2020 Gian Chand Subhash Chander Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.02.2019 [Annexure P-9] passed by the State Tax Officer-cum- Proper Officer whereby he has found liable to pay `1,36,56,685/- as tax penalty and interest. [2] The precise ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that when notice [Annexure P-4] was issued, the amount specified was less and therefore, in the final assessment the amount could not be more in view of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [3] Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, however, points out that within six weeks of issuance of notice [Annexure P-4], REEMA SAINI 2020.01.24 08:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh
CWP No.14895 o
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.