Chandigarh: The Punjab High Court and Haryana have issued a notice to the Workers Government and Haryana in the application submitted by Telecom Giant Bharti Airtel on the recovery process under the CGST law, asking the company to deposit RS 5.7 Crore.
The division bench consisting of Justice Avneesh Jingan and Justice Rajesh Bhardwah from HC issued a notice after recognizing the petition submitted by Bharti Airtel Limited.
In its request, the company has been looking for direction instructions to cancel the 8th notification.
HC has been told that on December 19, 2017, the Applicant submitted the form of GSTR-1, indicating the supply of RS 29,88,00,000 with respect to invoices No.
1.
The General Portal (CPIN) identification number is produced by the applicant who proves credit number with a government account and to the electronic ledger managed by the applicant.
Excise and Tax Officers (ETO) -Cum-Proper Official / Gurugram Authority Assessment issues a notification to companies that inform the incompatibility between the GSTR-1 form and the GSTR-3B form for December 2018.
On December 22, 2020, the company submitted a reply to explain the alleged incompatibility.
Eto-cum-proper officers, state tax, State GST Haryana Intelligence Unit, Sector-34, Gurugram, issued a call to the applicant’s company, looking for documents for alleged obligations to pay interest on the delay in payment of taxes for December 2018 and to appeal before authority.
On June 4, the company sent a letter, asking the calling authority to delay from a personal appearance scheduled for June 4 because of the restrictions imposed in the view of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The company then sent a letter to the officer concerned, explaining the situation that led to incompatibility in the form of GSTR-1 and formed the GSTR-3B and the reason why retribution was not guaranteed.
After that, the notification was issued by ETO-Cum-Proper officers, state tax, state intelligence unit Haryana State GST, Sector-34, Gurugram, started the recovery process in section 79 of CGST ACT and directed the applicant’s company to deposit RS 5.77, 62,543 In seven days from the receipt of the notification.
On June 12, the call was issued by the relevant GST authority, seeking document details / information in the nature of the list of bank accounts, list of debtors, accounts receivable and appeared before them on June 15.
It was realized from this, the company approached HC looking for instructions to cancel June 8 order on the grounds that the notification was issued by GST authorities, Gurugram, while exceeding their jurisdiction.
Further direction has also been sought to state that retrospective amendments are carried out in rules 61 (5) of the rules and rules of CGST 61 (5) of HGST rules, 2017 cannot interfere with the rights of the agreement created to support interesting imposition as on the tax payment date — January 17, 2019.
The problem has been fixed for July 5 for further hearing.