Dileep Divakaran Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The recent judgment by the Kerala High Court in the case of Dileep Divakaran vs. State Tax Officer sheds light on the consequences of failing to respond to a show cause notice. The petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, demanding CGST, SGST, interest, and penalty. Let’s delve into the details of this case.
Background
- The Petition and the Order : The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order (Ext.P1) issued by the 1st respondent. The order demanded an amount of Rs. 7,46,638/-, including CGST and SGST, along with interest and penalty. The order was issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017.
- Show Cause Notice and Non-Response: The petitioner received a show cause notice. However, the petitioner neither filed a reply nor attended a personal hearing. Consequently, a best judgment assessment was made due to the petitioner’s non-participation.
Legal Challenge and Court’s View
- Statutory Remedy Not Pursued: Instead of availing the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, the petitioner approached the High Court. The petitioner challenged the DRC-07 but not the order passed under Section 73(9).
- Entitlement to Approach the Court: The Court held that a taxpayer who fails to respond to a show cause notice and does not provide supporting documents cannot approach the Court. The petitioner’s writ petition was deemed not maintainable due to the lapse of the statutory limitation period and the lack of response to the notice.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of timely responses to show cause notices. Failure to do so may render a writ petition inadmissible. Taxpayers must be diligent in complying with legal procedures to protect their rights.
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
