This court find no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year’s turn over (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits under the composite scheme or for collecting taxes and penalty.
Section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Composite Scheme ----- The petitioner opted for paying tax under composite scheme as per the procedure under Section 10(1) of the Act. The petitioner submitted that the Department accepted the taxes paid/returns filed, till the date of issuance of SCN on 14.2.2018, wherein the action of the petitioner claiming payment of tax under the composite scheme was rejected on the ground that the turnover of petitioner for the “previous year” under the VAT regime was Rs. 2.09 crores. The respondent confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty, which was appealed but the same was rejected on 12.2.2020. The petitioner counsel submitted that the respondents having accepted the option exercised by the petitioner and having permitted him to pay tax at 1% of the total turn over, cannot now turn around and reject the option exercised. Further, the word ‘preceding financial year’ appearing in Section 10(1) would be from financial year, after the GST regime came into force and not otherwise. The court observed that the option exercised by the petitioner was self-declaratory, which required verification. Further, observed that the turn over of the previous year under the VAT regime has to be reckoned with for the purpose of extending benefit under GST regime, provided the self-declarations made are correct. Therefore, find no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year’s turn over (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits for composite scheme.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
This court find no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year’s turn over (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits under the composite scheme or for collecting taxes and penalty.
Section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Composite Scheme ----- The petitioner opted for paying tax under composite scheme as per the procedure under Section 10(1) of the Act. The petitioner submitted that the Department accepted the taxes paid/returns filed, till the date of issuance of SCN on 14.2.2018, wherein the action of the petitioner claiming payment of tax under the composite scheme was rejected on the ground that the turnover of petitioner for the “previous year” under the VAT regime was Rs. 2.09 crores. The respondent confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty, which was appealed but the same was rejected on 12.2.2020. The petitioner counsel submitted that the respondents having accepted the option exercised by the petitioner and having permitted him to pay tax at 1% of the total turn over, cannot now turn around and reject the option exercised. Further, the word ‘preceding financial year’ appearing in Section 10(1) would be from financial year, after the GST regime came into force and not otherwise. The court observed that the option exercised by the petitioner was self-declaratory, which required verification. Further, observed that the turn over of the previous year under the VAT regime has to be reckoned with for the purpose of extending benefit under GST regime, provided the self-declarations made are correct. Therefore, find no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year’s turn over (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits for composite scheme.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.