AP High Court: Issue New Notices on Differences in Form GST ASMT-10

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered the government to send out new intimation notices with the concerned officer’s approval.

The two intimation notices issued in response to differences in Form GST ASMT-10 were found to be invalid, noted by the bench of Justices Durga Prasad Rao and Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.

The petitioner, M/s. Sudhakar Traders was in the business of the supply of iron and steel purchased from the resident registered taxable individuals who are registered dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (APGST).

Related: AP HC: No Authority to Summon Third Party to Prevent GST Payment U/S 70

Following notification from the regional vigilance & enforcement officer (second respondent), the third respondent issued notices of intimation concerning the differences in Form GST ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act. Within fifteen days after receipt, the notices sought payment of the overdue tax or an explanation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that there is no rule allowing the State’s Director of Vigilance & Enforcement to order an investigation of the business properties of a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax.

The bench noted that the contested notices did not fall under Section 67 of the Act but it does under Rule 99(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules when read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Act.

Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner (ST) is the 3rd respondent who sent the challenged notices, not the Chief Commissioner. As a result, the 3rd respondent needs the Chief Commissioner’s approval before issuing the impugned notices under Rule 99 read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act.

Recommended: Impact of System-generated GST Notices on Honest Taxpayers

Since the Chief Commissioner, the concerned officer had not approved, the High Court Division Bench had to decide that the two argued notices were unlawful.