Case Law Details
Saidurga Automobiles Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed multiple writ petitions from dealers in automobiles and automobile parts regarding the issuance of a demand order in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioners argued that the authorities violated Section 61 of the CGST Act, which mandates a 30-day period for responding to discrepancies identified during the scrutiny of returns. Notices were issued on 02.06.2023, and the petitioners were initially given until 09.07.2023 to reply. However, a Form GST DRC-07 intimation dated 03.06.2023 required responses by 09.06.2023, followed by a show-cause notice on 15.06.2023 with a reply deadline of 21.06.2023. The demand order was subsequently passed on 04.07.2023, not adhering to the stipulated 30-day period. The petitioners contended that this action violated both the CGST Act and principles of natural justice, as they were not given adequate time to respond. The court found merit in the petitioners’ claims and set aside the demand order, directing the authorities to grant adequate time for the petitioners to respond in accordance with the CGST Act. The writ petitions were allowed, and the matter was remanded to the authorities for appropriate action, with no costs imposed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order as the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is the same issue of violation of principles of natural justice:
2. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are dealers in automobiles and automobiles parts. They were all issued notices dated 02.06.2023 raising certain discrepancies that are said to have been identified during the scrutiny of the returns of the petitioners. These show-cause notices were granted with a delay of 30 days to furnish the reply by the petitioners. The due date of furnishing of reply would have been 09.07.2023. However, the intimation in the Form GST DRC-07 was passed on 03.06.2023 requiring the petitioners to file their reply on or before 09.06.2023. Subsequently, the show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 15.06.2023 was served on the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to file their replies by 21.06.2023.
3. Subsequently, the demand order in Form GST DRC-07 was passed on 04.07.2023.
4. The petitioners contend that the Section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 provides for a period of 30 days to be given before any further steps can be taken against the petitioners in the present case. The said termination would have ended on 02.07.2023. However, further steps were taken from 03.06.2023 itself.
5. The petitioners further contend that the aforesaid action of the assigning authorities are in violation of Section 61 of CGST Act apart from being violation of principles of natural justice where the petitioners were not given adequate time to respond to the notices.
6. We find substantial merit in the said contentions in as much as Section 61 of the CGST Act requires a minimum period of 30 days before any further steps can be taken by the authorities.
7. In these circumstances, these Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned demand order in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref. Nos.ZD370723002019N, ZD3707230019659, ZD370723002024W, ZD370723001983B and ZD3707230019972, dated 04.07.2023 and remanding the matter to the assigning authorities for taking appropriate action after granting adequate time in accordance with provisions of the CGST Act and the rules made there under for the petitioners to file their responses. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
