Priya Agarwal vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, through their counsel, challenged a demand notice dated 04.05.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun. The notice required the petitioner to pay a certain amount of Goods and Services Tax and stated that "Otherwise, action against your firm may be taken as per law." The petitioner argued that any GST-related action should be taken under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The respondents' counsel stated that any action would be taken as permissible under law. The Court noted that no recovery proceedings had been initiated as per the impugned notice.
Held
The Court observed that the impugned notice stated that in case of default in payment, action would be taken "as per law." The respondents also assured that any action initiated would be permissible under law. Since no recovery proceedings had yet been initiated as per the notice, and no such proceedings had been brought to the Court's attention, the Court found no immediate need for intervention. The Court reasoned that if and when any action is taken, it would be in accordance with the law, and the petitioner could then challenge it if aggrieved. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 04.05.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, is valid in its general statement of potential action "as per law" without specifying the relevant legal provisions. The petitioner contended that any action concerning GST must be initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The respondents argued that any action taken would be in accordance with the law.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.2486 of 2023 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents. The challenge in this petition is made to demand notice dated 04.05.2023, issued by the respondent no.1, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, by which the petitioner was required to pay certain Goods and Services Tax on certain amount. The notice further records that, “Otherwise, action against your firm may be taken as per law”. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if any action is to be taken with regard to the GST, the proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017, may only be taken. The Court wanted to know as to why it should be specified as to under what provision of law the respondent-authority will take action? The impugned notice in itself records that in case of default in making payments, action may be
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.