2025 (6) TMI 1785 - HC - GST

Tax liability of petitioner for the tax period 2017-18 - petitioner has given superficial reply however not clearly explained the position in the reply - HELD THAT - In terms of the Sl.No.11 to N/N. 11/2017-Central tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 prima facie there is an indication that the tax has to be paid on Reverse Charge Basis on the recipient however this aspect has not been considered in the impugned order. Considering the consistent view of this Court this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The impugned order which stands quashed shall be treated as corrigendum/addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court, in disposing of the writ petition against the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 imposing tax liability for 2017-18, observed that the petitioner, engaged in transportation of bottles for TASMAC, contended that GST liability was on the recipient (TASMAC) under Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, and the corresponding State notification. The Court noted that the impugned order failed to consider the "prima facie" applicability of Reverse Charge Mechanism under Sl.No.11 of the Notification. Although the petitioner's reply was superficial, the Court, adhering to its consistent view, set aside the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The quashed order is to be treated as a corrigendum/addendum to the preceding show cause notice. The petitioner must file a detailed reply within 30 days along with the deposit. The respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within three months, ensuring the petitioner is heard. The petition was disposed of with no costs.