[GST] Assesee Cannot File For Requisite Documents Once Plea Is Accepted And Notice Is Issued: Allahabad High Court
Upasna Agrawal
11 Dec 2024 11:55 AM IST
![[GST] Assesee Cannot File For Requisite Documents Once Plea Is Accepted And Notice Is Issued: Allahabad High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/04/30/750x450_416285-allahabad-hc-03.jpg "[GST] Assesee Cannot File For Requisite Documents Once Plea Is Accepted And Notice Is Issued: Allahabad High Court")
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the filing party.
Case Background
Petitioner was issued a show cause notice, whereby he was informed of discrepancies in his income tax return. Petitioner replied stating that the discrepancies pointed out were lesser than the amount calculated in the notice and filed the requisite documents.
Finding the reply furnished by the petitioner to be unclear, notice under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner. In his reply, the petitioner reiterated his earlier reasoning with regard to the incorrect calculation of the discrepancies and attached documents of proof with the same. However, on 27.08.2024, the authorities passed an order, partly accepting the plea of the petitioner and raising a demand of Rs.7.4 Lakhs to be paid by him.
Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition.
Petitioner contended that the notice was bad in law as it was done without attaching the requisite documents. It was submitted that in the show cause notice should be set aside as the impugned order was passed on a distinct date than the one mentioned in the notice.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents argued that once the issue had been determined by the competent authority and a part of his plea had been accepted, the petitioner had the opportunity of filing an appeal against the same and a writ petition is not maintainable.
High Court Verdict
The Court held that since the petitioner did not seek the requisite documents and filed reply based on the documents available with him, it could not be said that non-supply of the documents was grounds enough to set aside the impugned order.
“The submissions sought to be made by counsel for the petitioner regarding non-supply of documents cannot be countenanced in the circumstances of the present case wherein neither in response to the notice pointing out the discrepancies nor in response to the notice under Section 73(1), the petitioner sought supply of the documents and based on the material available with it, filed the response,” held the Court.
The Court held that there was no reasons for it to intervene in a situation where a part of the plea had been accepted and the petitioner had the opportunity to avail statutory appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr. [WRIT TAX No. - 2160 of 2