M/S.Alan Info Services Private LTD vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Alan Info Services Private Limited, a Government Contractor, challenged three impugned orders dated 28.08.2023, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. These orders confirmed demand proposals issued in Form GST DRC-01 dated 21.08.2023, which were preceded by notices in Form GST DRC-01-A dated 03.07.2023. The petitioner had replied to the DRC-01-A notice on 21.07.2023. The petitioner contended that their services were exempted under Notification No.12/2017, Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017, for the periods 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The petitioner also challenged subsequent rectification orders dated 07.03.2025, which rejected their invocation of Section 161 jurisdiction. A discrepancy was noted between information in GSTR-2A and GSTR-1, auto-populated in GSTR-3B.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 28.08.2023 and the subsequent rectification orders dated 07.03.2025 should be set aside. The Court noted that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(ST) had already allowed the petitioner's appeals for identical periods on 20.03.2024, pursuant to Notification No.12/2017-CT(Rate). Therefore, the Court was inclined to remit the matters back to the respondent for a fresh exercise. The petitioner was directed to cooperate by providing all necessary documents to substantiate that their services were purely to Government Departments and thus entitled to exemption under Notification No.12/2017-CT(Rate)/28.06.2017. If the petitioner failed to substantiate their claim, the respondent was permitted to pass appropriate orders confirming the demand. The entire exercise was to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when an appellate authority has granted relief for similar periods based on a specific notification, and there are indications of procedural lapses or discrepancies, the matter should be remanded for proper adjudication, with the onus on the petitioner to provide substantiating evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 28.08.2023 and rectification orders dated 07.03.2025, issued by the respondent, are without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their services as a Government Contractor were exempted under Notification No.12/2017, Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017. They contended that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. They also pointed to a prior adverse assessment order dated 01.06.2023, which was challenged before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(ST) and that the rectification orders were wrongly rejected. Respondent's arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's case would be considered if adequate information and supporting documents were provided to substantiate that the services were exclusively to the Government Contractor and exempted under Notification No.12-2017-Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017.