S.K. ELDHOSE Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 proceedings and Ext.P5(a) summary order passed by the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that, it is a proprietary-ship concern having CGST and KSGST registration. The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 ' FORM GST ASMT-10 - notice under Sec. 61 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ' GST Act') and Rule 99(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules (in short 'GST Rules'] framed thereunder, alleging that the petitioner had claimed excess input tax (ITC) during the year 2017-2018 in violation of Sec. 16(2)(c) of the GST Act. The petitioner explained his case to the best of his understanding and pointed out the discrepancies. He was under the impression that the issue was settled forever. Surprisingly, in the last week, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice demanding an amount of Rs.2,82,040.00. The petitioner has not received any order passed pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. The first respondent has intimated that a show case notice and assessment order passed under Sec. 73 of the Act were uploaded on the GST portal relating to the year 2017-2018, but the same was not brought to the notice of the petitioner. Then the petitioner downloaded Ext.P4 show cause notice, Ext.P5 assessment order and Ext.P5(a) summary of the assessment order. A perusal of Exts.P4 and P5 show that Ext.P5 is passed entirely on a different ground from what is pointed out in Ext.P1. Hence, the entire proceedings leading to Exts.P5 and P5(a) are vitiated and bad in the eyes of law. Since Exts.P5 and P5 (a) were not brought to the notice of the petitioner, his remedy to file a statutory appeal under Sec. 107 of the GST Act is time barred. The petitioner has no alternative remedy, but to approach this Court. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard;SriAji.V.Dev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Sri.Aji.V.Dev reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He submitted that it is only because the petitioner did not receive Exts.P5 and P5(a) that he could not file the statutory appeal within the prescribed time period. Exts.P5 and P5(a) establish that the same is passed in egregious violation of the provisions of the GST Act and the GST Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has made out extra-ordinary grounds warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Exts.P5 and P5(a) may be set aside.