The Issue:The company received a show cause notice in August 2023 demanding payment of GST for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22. The company argued that the notice was issued beyond the regular limitation period of three years as per the GST Act. The authorities, however, justified the delay by invoking the extended limitation period provision.
The Company's Arguments:
The company contested the validity of the order based on two main points:
Limitation Period: The company argued that the authorities failed to establish a proper justification for invoking the extended limitation period. They relied on previous court judgments stating that extended limitation can only be applied in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
Writ Jurisdiction: The company challenged the order through a writ petition, claiming the authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice beyond the standard limitation period.
The Authorities' Arguments:
The authorities defended their actions by stating:
Reasons for Extended Period: They claimed the show cause notice clearly explained the reasons for invoking the extended period, including allegations of fraudulent input tax credit availment by the company.
Writ Not Maintainable: The authorities argued that the company should have appealed the order through the statutory remedy available under the GST Act instead of filing a writ petition.
Court's Decision:
The court dismissed the writ petition. While acknowledging previous judgments requiring justification for extended limitation, the court found that the authorities had adequately explained their reasons in the show cause notice and subsequent order. The court also agreed that the company should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal before resorting to a writ petition.
Case Law-Haldia Nirman Project Private Limited Versus The Additional Commissioner of CGST
Citation-2024 TAXONATION 1193 (CALCUTTA)
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL CASE LAW
OR
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
Comment: