2023 (9) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents placed on records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in doing business of Trading Electrical goods and he is an assessee under GST in registration GSTIN/33AGHPR4673BIZH. The respondent has issued notice, namely FORM GST DRC-01A, dated 01.12.2022, directing the petitioner to explain the discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner. Thereafter another Notice, dated 03.01.2023 was also issued. The petitioner could not submit his reply due to his illness. Hence the respondent proceeded further and issued Summary Order, dated 07.03.2023 and the details of the proposal is as under: Details of Demand: Tax: 1,57,934.00   Penalty: 1,57,934.00 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the same is stated hereunder: CGST Interest determined :Rs.10644/- SGST Interest determined :Rs.10644/- 6. The petitioner submitted that under Section 74(9), the respondents are shall consider the representation of the assessee, then determine the tax, interest and penalty. However, Section 74(10) it is stated that the officer shall issue the order under Section 74(9) within a period of five years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous refund. Therefore, the petitioner submits within one month, the entire process is over, therefore, the respondent has f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the present case the notice was issued on 01.12.2022 and 03.01.2023 and Summary Order was passed on 07.03.2023, i.e. within two months the respondents have passed an order. Even though the provisions prescribe five years as outer limit but the provisions do not prescribe minimum time from passing order, in such circumstances the respondents ought to have passed order within reasonable time. Two months period definitely is not reasonable time and the petitioner is right in stating that adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner. 8. As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, the respondents have imposed 100% penalty. The provision grants concession for the assessee to pay 15% of penalty if the assessee pays the tax, interest p....