For filing the explanation on the due queries that the Goods and Services Tax authorities have refused, a Single Bench of Madras High Court permitted an extension of 30 days to Exide Industries in a recent ruling.
The bench of Justice P.B. Balaji, the impugned orders would not discuss the extension cause of time at all, left its finding either granting or rejecting the adjournment and thus set aside all the orders.
The applicant, Exide Industries Limited, is engaged in the manufacturing business of lead acid storage batteries; under the Goods and Services Tax Act, the applicant is registered.
Under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Authorities issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under GST quoting different foundations for the imposition of the interest and penalty.
On 13.01.2023 the applicant provided its answer on an identical day acknowledging, the applicant was afforded the personal hearing nextly, as the additional information was asked dated 23.01.2023.
The information would have been furnished to the applicant for three of the six queries and asked for the time as follows for the left three queries, but the respondent moves to pass the impugned orders on 10.02.2023.
The bench sees that the applicant’s urge for the extension of the time for three of the queries was overlooked by the respondent authorities.
The counsel for the applicant stated before the court GST Circular No. 12/2022, dated September 26, 2022, issued by the respondent where the same mentioned that the individual must be provided with a reasonable chance to show cause and that laid on the particulars of each case, despite a long period of extension might be allotted by the assessing/adjudicating officer.
The bench shows that the circular on 26.09.2022 of the respondent would precisely be mentioned that the communication allotted the time or denial to allot the time will be sent to the taxpayer.
The respondent would have breached the circular as per the High Court and the same was revealed to be just and proper for furnishing the applicant a fair opportunity to elaborate the three open questions in a specified duration. Nextly the respondent might provide a new order post acknowledging the applicant’s statement along with the former elaborations that the same would have been furnished.
| Case Title | Exide Industries Limited Vs.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) |
| Citation | W.P. Nos.15405 & 15406 of 2023 |
| Date | 11.05.2023 |
| Petitioner in both WPs | Mr. Vinay Kumar Shraf |
| Respondents in both WPs | Mrs. E. Ranganayaki Special Government Pleader |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
