Sivachandran.S vs. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (GST Appeal)

Held

The Court held that the Show Cause Notice did contain ingredients to invoke Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, as it alleged that the petitioner willfully failed to pay tax with the intention to evade tax liability. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have a case on merits, the Court found that this was a matter for appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments before the Appellate Authority (the first respondent). This appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner towards the confirmed demand in the impugned order would be waived from this pre-deposit requirement. The Appellate Authority was directed to admit the appeal if filed within the stipulated time and in compliance with the directions, and to dispose of it on merits, leaving all issues open for the petitioner to canvass before it.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Sivachandran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST). This order was preceded by a Notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 10.02.2021 and a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 12.01.2024, issued under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. Personal Hearing Notices were also issued on 20.02.2024 and 25.03.2024, to which the petitioner had replied. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice did not contain ingredients to invoke the limitation period under Section 74(10) of the GST Enactments. The assessment year in question is 2018-2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 12.01.2024, issued under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, contained sufficient ingredients to invoke the period of limitation under Section 74(10) of the said Enactments, considering the allegations of willful failure to pay tax with intent to evade liability. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice did not contain any ingredients to invoke the period of limitation under Section 74(10) of the respective GST Enactments. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the Court noted that the Show Cause Notice alleged that the petitioner reported turnover and willfully failed to pay the corresponding tax with the intention to evade tax liability, which the Court considered as ingredients to invoke Section 74.