M/S. Alvin Industries vs. Assistant Commjissionner State Tax, Goods And Service Tax, Baruipure And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Alvin Industries, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging seven demand notices issued by the respondent Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Goods and Service Tax, Baruipur Charge. These notices arose from the same financial year, 2017-18. The State GST authority, through its learned advocate, submitted that the issuance of multiple demand notices was due to technical glitches in the system. The authority further stated that only one demand notice, specifically FORM GST DRC – 07 dated 29th August, 2023, appearing at page 104 of the writ petition, would be considered effective, and the other six demand notices would not be given effect to.
Held
The Court considered the submission made by the learned advocate representing the State GST authority. The authority conceded that the issuance of seven demand notices for the same financial year was due to technical glitches. They further stated that only one demand notice, FORM GST DRC – 07 dated 29th August, 2023, would be effective, and the remaining six would not be given effect to. Based on this submission, the Court found that the issue of multiple demands for the same period was being rectified by the authority itself. The Court held that all legal consequences would follow automatically from the authority's statement. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis, with the understanding that only the single effective demand notice would proceed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issuance of multiple demand notices for the same financial year, arising from the same cause, is legally sustainable under the Goods and Services Tax regime? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issuance of seven demand notices for the same financial year was arbitrary and illegal. The State GST authority, through its counsel, conceded that the multiple notices were a result of technical glitches in the system. They further submitted that only one of the demand notices would be treated as effective, and the rest would be withdrawn. The authority did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents to justify the initial issuance of multiple notices but rather explained it as a system error.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 PB Sl. No.
WPA 25963 of 2023 M/s. Alvin Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Goods and Service Tax, Baruipur Charge & Ors. Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty, … For the Petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal. ……for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent WBGST authority issuing seven numbers of demand notices arising out of the same financial year 2017-18. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate representing the State GST authority submits that due to technical glitches in the system such mistake has happened and on instruction he submits that only one demand being FORM GST DRC – 07 dated 29th August, 2023, appearing at page 104 of the writ petition will be effective and the rest six demands will not be given effect to.
2 Considering such submission of learned advocate representing the State GST authority, all legal consequence will follow automatically and accordingly, this writ petition being WPA 25963 of 2023 is disposed of. ( Md. Nizamuddin,
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.