2023 (9) TMI 700 - HC - GST

Relevant date for calculation of interest - Section 50(3) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The respondent while passing the order elaborately reproduced. The reply of the petitioner from Internal Page No.2 of the impugned order upto the Internal Page No.9. However there is no discussion. Clearly the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner without considering the reply of the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Impugned Assessment order u/s 50(3) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, Penalty levied u/s 73(9) of TNGST Act/CGST Act 2017, Arbitrary passing of order without considering petitioner's reply.

Impugned Assessment Order: The petitioner challenged the Assessment order dated 20.06.2023, specifically objecting to the calculation of interest u/s 50(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. The order required interest to be paid up to the date of payment of tax confirmed in the order, which the petitioner contended was incorrect. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary as it lacked discussion and consideration of the petitioner's reply. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh order within six weeks, emphasizing the need to consider the petitioner's reply and grant the petitioner a hearing before passing the new order.

Penalty Imposed: The impugned order also imposed a penalty u/s 73(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017, for excess credit claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The penalty was calculated at 10% of the excess credit claim of ITC or Rs. 10,000, whichever was higher. The total tax, penalty, and interest levied were detailed in a table, showing the amounts due for IGST, CGST, and SGST. The High Court did not address the penalty specifically in its order setting aside the Assessment order, focusing primarily on the incorrect calculation of interest.

Conclusion: The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition without costs, directing the respondent to reevaluate the Assessment order in a manner that considers the petitioner's reply and complies with the law. The petitioner was also granted the right to be heard before the new order is passed, ensuring a fair process in the assessment of taxes and penalties.