Case Law Details
Prime Steel Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of H.P. & others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
In the recent case of Prime Steel Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of H.P. & others, the Himachal Pradesh High Court made a significant ruling regarding the issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 notices prior to the issuance of show cause notices. This article delves into the details of the case, the legal framework involved, and the implications of the court’s decision.
The case revolves around the issuance of DRC-01 notices by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Excise, Barotiwala, Himachal Pradesh, for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23. These notices were issued without serving ASMT – 10, contrary to the provisions of Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to adhere to the statutory requirement of issuing ASMT-10 notices prior to show cause notices, as mandated by law.
During the proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh stayed the proceedings initiated by the respondents based on the notices issued without complying with Rule 99. The court noted the petitioner’s argument and the admission by the Additional Advocate General that ASMT-10 notices were not issued prior to the issuance of DRC-01 notices. Relying on Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the court emphasized the mandatory nature of issuing ASMT-10 notices before show cause notices.
This ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in GST proceedings. It reaffirms the principle that statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to by the authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in tax administration. Failure to comply with such requirements can lead to the invalidation of subsequent proceedings, as demonstrated in this case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
