Case Law Details
Shri. J.Milton Jeba Manickam Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed a crucial issue regarding an alleged erroneous 100% penalty imposed under the CGST Act for a period falling under the VAT regime. The case of Shri. J. Milton Jeba Manickam Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise sheds light on the complexities of tax assessments and statutory appeals.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed by the respondent, primarily disputing the demand confirmed for the assessment year 2017-2018 under the CGST Act. Additionally, the petitioner contested the imposition of a 100% penalty for the subsequent assessment years, arguing that it was unsustainable. The crux of the petitioner’s argument rested on the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for the 2017-2018 assessment year.
The respondent countered, asserting that the demand confirmed for 2017-2018 pertained to the period under the TNVAT Act, 2006, and since the petitioner failed to produce records substantiating tax payment under the VAT regime, the demand was upheld. Moreover, the respondent highlighted alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner, justifying the penalty imposition.
The court carefully considered both parties’ arguments and concluded that the challenge to the assessment order did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Instead, the petitioner was directed to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the appellate authority. The court emphasized that the merits of the case, including whether the assessment fell under the VAT regime, should be addressed by the appellate Commissioner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
