9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T regime with effect from 01.07.2017, petitioner was required to migrate to GST system of taxation electronically. As per the Rule 24 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Rules, 2017'), a person registered under the existing law has to enrol on the GST portal by validating the e-mail address and mobile number i.e., the assessee himself/herself has to migrate to a new tax regime provided. It is contended that without knowledge and permission of the petitioner, 5th respondent office had illegally effected suo moto migration of the petitioner and had keyed in mobile number 9030389877 reportedly belonging to one of the officers of the respondent and provide e-mail id of the office of 5th respondent i.e., [email protected]. 4. As per the GST regime, which came into effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner herein was required to file monthly return electronically of his transactions declaring his tax liability and other particulars. Filing of return is possible only furnishing One Time Password (OTP) that would be generated by the GST portal, which could be sent to the registered mobile number and e-mail id, which were provided at the time of migration. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given effect to. 7. Despite order dated 29.06.2022, the respondents did not dispose of representations within the stipulated time of 30 days, instead the respondent no. 4 issued another letter dated 27.10.2022 intimating personal hearing on 04.11.2022. The petitioner submitted written submissions to the 4th respondent on 04.11.2022 and has taken specific objection that 4th respondent has no locus standi to issue notice for personal hearing, since this Court vide order dated 29.6.2022 in W.P. No. 27336 of 2022 had directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representations. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 filed counter and in the counter, it is contended that petitioner was earlier registered with the Service Tax Department vide STC No. ABYPB1004 and migrated to GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. There was delay in filing GSTR-3B returns for the financial year 2017-18. Thus, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at Rs. 30,05,330/- and the same was intimated to the petitioner through e-mail dated 23.02.2022. Petitioner replied to the said e-mail vide letter dated 08.03.2022 informing the respondents that due to unknown technical problem in the GST portal, they could not file th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent and could not file monthly returns in time from September, 2017 to January, 2019 as OTP is not communicated by the officers concerned. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that on account of illegal suo moto migration effected by the respondent-Department, petitioner is being penalized with the demand of interest for the delayed payment for no fault on his part. He further submitted that in spite of specific direction from this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 27336 of 2022, the representations and the written submissions submitted by the petitioner were not considered within time. Further, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 was passed by the 4th respondent, who has no locus standi is clear contravention of the orders dated 29.06.2022 passed by this Court, wherein 3rd respondent was specifically directed to consider the representations and pass orders. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions that respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and also impugned order passed by 4th respondent is without authority, contrary to the orders passed by this Court and prayed to set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 (369) ELT 320 (Mad.); iii) Union of India vs. Rubber Products Ltd., 2015 (326) ELT 232 (SC); iv) Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs.CEGAT, Madras 2006 (205) ELT 9 (Mad.); v) General Cement Products Ltd,. Vs. CEGAT, New Delhi 2015 (323) ELT 97 (All); vi) Navasakthi Township Dev.P.Ltd., vs. CCE & ST, Puducherry 2017 (358) ELT 116 (Mad.); vii) GMMCO Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2016 (41) STR 32 (Bom); viii) Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry vs. CEE 2014 (36) STR 490 (AP); ix) Modi Spinning and WVG Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad 1984 (17) ELT 1 (All) 17. Without going into rival contentions and merits of the case, it is relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the order dated 29.06.2022 in WP No.27336 of 2022, which reads as under: "5. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 3 Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Hyderabad GST Commisionerate, Hyderabad to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.04.2022 and 28.04.2022 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the above decision be taken by respondent No. 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
