Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 995 - HC - GSTValidity Of Order passed u/s 73 - demand in respect of denial of ITC to the petitioner with respect to the suppliers whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively - Denial of the right of cross-examination - Refund of coercive deposit of Rs 20 Lakhs during search and survey proceedings - HELD THAT:- Denial of the right of cross-examination can cause grave and serious prejudice to an entity. In the instant case, the proper officer has himself noticed that the proper officer has intended to summon the said person, however on account of paucity of time declined to do so. Such a course cannot be countenance for the same caused grave prejudice to the person against whom the said statement or document is sought to be relied upon. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the proper officer himself intended to summon the said witnesses, however did not do so on account of paucity of time, the impugned order to the limited extent, of the denial of input credit tax in respect of cancelled dealers, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication on the said aspect after summoning the said dealers/suppliers for the purpose of cross examination and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the contention of the petitioner is that the deposit was not voluntary and was under coercion and a request for refund was made to the proper officer, the proper office should have considered the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, while reconsidering the issue with regard to denial of input tax credit for cancelled dealer, the proper officer shall also consider the request of the petitioner for refund of the said amount of Rs. 20 lacs in accordance with law keeping in view the various pronouncements rendered by this Court with regard to involuntary deposit. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the nature of deposit made by the petitioner i.e. as to whether the same was voluntary or involuntary and also with regard to the contention of the respondent that even if the amount is held to be an involuntary deposit, the same is liable to be adjusted against a demand that is liable to be created against the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Petition is accordingly petition is allowed in the above terms with a limited order of remit to the proper officer as noticed hereinabove.
|