GST Relief: Madras HC Orders Fresh Assessment of Waiver for Maharashtra Operations
Neither Section 79 nor the rules framed thereunder (Chapter XVIII) specify the basis to identify the proper officer. Both Sections 79 and Section 128A, nonetheless, use the expression ‘the proper officer’, thereby indicating that it is a specific person. Significantly, Rule 164 envisages a single application in Form GST SPL-01 or SPL-02, and not multiple applications. Section 79 also provides for availing of the services of a specified officer for recovery. Considering all these aspects, having issued the combined order under Section 73 in respect of both Chennai and Maharashtra locations, there is no statutory basis for the proper officer to decline to exercise jurisdiction in respect of waiver with regard to Maharashtra. Therefore, the impugned order is partly set aside only insofar as the rejection of the waiver claim pertaining to Maharashtra is concerned and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued on the waiver application insofar as Maharashtra is concerned. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Radhika Goyal is Author of Taxconcept Gurugram head office, for deeply reported tax, gst and income tax articles on issues that matter. He splits her time between New Delhi and Bengaluru, and has worked as a reporter, a podcaster and an editor for publications across India.