Case Law Details
Sudhakar Traders Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that issuance of notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under rule 99 of A.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 read with Section 61 of A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Deputy Commissioner without authorization of Chief Commissioner lacks authorization and hence liable to be quashed.
Facts- The petitioner is engaged in supply of iron and steel purchased from the resident registered taxable persons. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the APGST Act and an assessee on the file of 3rd respondent herein. While so, the petitioner submitted its returns for the taxable period April 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021. The 3rd respondent, on having received alert note vide R.C.No.158/C/2020 dated 21.12.2022 from the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer / 2nd respondent, scrutinized the aforesaid returns and found the suppression of sales turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner for both the taxable periods and accordingly, issued notices of intimation dated 28.02.2023 regarding the discrepancies in Form GST ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the AGPST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act and called for the payment of the due tax / explanation within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.
Hence, the instant two writ petitions.
Conclusion- A pertinent question will arise here that even for acting under Rule 99(1) of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act, whether the 3rd respondent requires any authorization. This question would arise because in Rule 99 as well as in Section 61 the word ‘Proper Officer’ is employed and it is stated that the Proper Officer may scrutinize the returns submitted by the registered person.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
