SRI SAIDURGA AUTOMOBILES

VERSUS

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS dated 03.07.2024

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1671

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Section 61 of the CGST Act mandates a minimum 30-day period before any further steps can be taken by the authorities, which was not adhered to in this case. It was found that the authorities violated Section 61 of the CGST Act by not providing the petitioners with the required 30-day period to respond before taking further steps. Premature action by the authorities violated both Section 61 of the CGST Act and the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner were not given sufficient time to respond. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned demand orders in Form GST DRC-07 and remanded the matter to the concerned authorities. The authorities were directed to take appropriate action only after granting adequate time to the petitioners to file their responses, in accordance with the CGST Act and the relevant rules.

In this case, Notices dated 02.06.2023 were issued highlighting discrepancies found during the scrutiny of their returns. These notices were expected to be replied to within 30 days. Despite this, the authorities issued an intimation in Form GST DRC-07 on 03.06.2023, requiring replies by 09.06.2023, and later served a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 15.06.2023, with a deadline of 21.06.2023 for replies.

It was argued that that under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017, they should have been given a 30-day period to respond before any further actions were taken. The deadline for this period would have been 02.07.2023, but actions were initiated from 03.06.2023, much earlier than the prescribed time.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426