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
