|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 11456 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 1162 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention and then in passing the final order from the date of service of such notice - two figures in the vehicle number differing from that recorded in the e-way bills - HELD THAT:- Annexure-P/1 is series of e-way bills which shows the transport to be in vehicle no. UP78 CT 9645. On detention the transport was found to be made in a vehicle having no. UP78 CT 9650. The petitioner produced documents, as stated in the writ petition, establishing that the vehicles bearing both the registration numbers belonged to the petitioner. The tax authority in the order passed specifically pointed out that this would further the case of evasion and if the vehicles were with two different operators probably the recording of the number in the e-way bill was a bonafide mistake - the merits of the case need no consideration, especially when the contention is of bar by virtue of limitation.
Be that as it may, even if the detention is stated to be on 28.12.2023, the notice was only issued on 05.1.2024, after the seven day period provided in Section 129(3) CGST Act. Likewise when the petitioner had been informed at the time of verification, if the petitioner had sought for time on the seventh day from the date of serving of notice, there was nothing preventing the tax authority from rejecting the said prayer and passing the order, especially since, if the matter is kept pending, the proceedings would be barred by limitation.
The Limitation is clear and definite. The facts of the case indicate that the officers did not act in accordance with the provisions, we hence find no reason to sustain the demand raised. We set aside the orders passed for detention of the vehicles. The vehicle with the goods would be released immediately. Ordered, accordingly.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1161 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - rejection has been made primarily on the ground that the petitioner has failed to file their returns for more than six (06) months continuously - HELD THAT:- It is necessary to appreciate the fact that the show cause notice was that of December, 2020. Everybody knows that since March, 2020, onwards it was Covid pandemic that ripped through the entire country bringing the entire commercial and industrial establishments to a standstill or at least remaining closed for a major part of that period. The business of these establishments including that of the petitioner must have definitely been affected - If the default on the part of the petitioner is only so far as non-furnishing of the returns, we are of the considered opinion that subject to the petitioner making good the default, the said GST registration of the petitioner would get restored which would enable the petitioner to carry on his business and which would also generate GST revenue to the respondent authorities as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also undertaken to make good the necessary default so far as non-furnishing of the GST returns are concerned along with late fees and penalty that would be applicable.
The present Writ Petition stands allowed directing the petitioner to immediately appear before the respondent authorities by 12.03.2024 and upon furnishing the entire GST returns up till date which they have not yet filed along with requisite late fees and penalty if any, the respondent authorities shall forthwith restore the GST registration of the petitioner without any further scrutiny so far as the default of non-payment of GST returns till now is concerned and the same is a onetime measure.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1160 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking release of goods in terms of the provision of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 - SCN issued to the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee - HELD THAT:- The transaction disclosed to the revenue authorities was one of job work return to the petitioner (a registered dealer in the State of Haryana) from a dealer in Daurala. The goods were intercepted during movement through the State of Uttar Pradesh - Penalty order has also been passed against the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee. The case of the revenue is that the petitioner has also prepared delivery challan of job worker and therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed. At the same time, upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states, no person other than the petitioner has claimed the goods.
Undoubtedly, under Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017, different rates of penalties are prescribed depending upon the status of the person viz-a-viz, the goods that may have been seized. Again, undoubtedly the owner of the goods may not be visited with penalty exceeding 200 percent of the tax leviable on the offending goods.
Learned counsel for the petitioner last submits that the goods may be made over to the petitioner subject to its complying Section 129 (1)(a) of UPGST Act, 2017 with liberty to appeal against the penalty order.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed at this stage itself to the extent, petitioner is permitted to obtain release of goods against furnishing security equal to 200 percent of the tax imposable on the goods.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Clearly, the case of the petitioner is covered by the Notification dated 05.07.2022, which excludes the aforesaid period for computation of period of limitation. Accordingly, rejection of the claim for refund of the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation is not sustainable.
Impugned orders both dated 11.01.2022 for the respective tax period are set aside. Refund applications are restored on the record of the Assessing Authority, who is directed to decide the applications in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from today.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1131 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1130 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - SCN does not specify any cogent reason - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
The order dated 18.02.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2022 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1129 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1127 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking an order granting Police custody of A.1 for ten days - creating false GST accounts and claiming irregular Input Tax Credit - conspiracy with the companies with a common intention of misappropriating funds - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the Respondent/A.1 served as an Additional Director at Messrs. Avexa Corporation Private Limited for 67 days, specifically from 09.12.2019 to 14.02.2020. In the impugned Order, the learned Magistrate noted that the alleged forged invoices, submitted by the Accused company's Directors to claim the input tax credit, and Annexure-9A, consisting of purported fake bills from the shell company Tanisha Infra Zone Private Limited, as referenced on pages 15, 16, and 17, were relied upon by the Prosecution. Notably, these bills were raised on 18.03.2019, 22.03.2019, and 26.02.2019, respectively, when A.1 was not serving as an Additional Director at M/s. Avexa Corporation Private Limited. The learned Magistrate arrived at this conclusion based on the documents presented by the Prosecution, considering it as one of the reasons for denying the Order for police custody.
The learned Magistrate has additionally considered the remarks provided in the remand report, which highlight that the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) had previously investigated the submission of counterfeit invoice bills by the shell companies associated with the firm. These entities purportedly claimed to be engaged in development activities in the Amaravati region, although no actual work transpired. Consequently, the DGGI recommended a penalty of Rs. 16 crores against A.1's company under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This indicates that the DGGI, Hyderabad, has already undertaken a significant portion of the investigation.
It is also observed in the report that after verifying all the existing records available with ADCL, the payment was released to the extent of work done after following the due procedure of the Department and per the terms and conditions of the agreement and after due certification by PMC M/s. LEA Associates South Asia Private Limited, at every stage, as mentioned in Para No. 6(A), to ensure that the requisite quality & quantity checks are done both by the PMC in the presence of the Department & the Principal Contractor.
Having not disputed the detailed report of the committee, it is now somewhat difficult to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner/Complainant that the diversion of Government funds by Avexa through the shell companies has to be investigated - Upon considering the entire material on record, this Court finds no illegality in the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, and it needs not be interfered with.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1096 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - shifting of burden of proof on the assessee to show that there was no intention to evade tax (onus to prove) - HELD THAT:- The intention to evade tax is sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The facts in the present clearly indicate that the place where the goods were unloaded is the godown belonging to the petitioner and not to any third party. It is not in dispute that this particular godown was registered as place of business of the petitioner in the erstwhile Value Added Tax regime.
There is no intention to evade tax whatsoever. The imposition of penalty in such circumstances is not warranted. The judgement of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also supports the case of the petitioner that unloading of goods at a different place by itself would not lead to imposition of penalty.
The impugned order dated July 28, 2022 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1095 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - SCN does not specify any cogent reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 08.11.2022 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1094 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete. He merely held that the reply is incomplete and lacks supporting documents which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1093 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Challenged the order cancelling the registration - barred by limitation - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 20.01.2022. it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. In absence of the same the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Further since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds that the doctrine of merger will have no application considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Thus, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby quashed - The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1092 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are also bereft of any details. Accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 29.11.2020 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 01.10.2019 i.e., the date when Petitioner applied for cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 19.11.2020 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was devoid of merits. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits which exfacie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1089 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind whatsoever - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 25, 2023 and the appellate order dated December 29, 2023 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1088 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no material on record to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that the copy of the original order in appeal was annexed with the appeal paper book at the time of the online submissions.
The impugned order set aside - matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1087 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - irregular availment of Input Tax Credit - creation and operation of fake GST firms and issuing fake GST invoices from these firms - involved in the passing of fake ITC from 102 non-existent firms to the tune of Rs. 274.89 Cr. by way of issuing invoices without any actual supply of goods - HELD THAT:- It reveals from the perusal of the record that by blaming Naveen Aggarwal the accused persons want to escape from liability whereas there is sufficient and ample evidence to the effect that they themselves were managing the affairs of illegal activities and fake ITC (Income Tax Credit) was availed by them and they were engaged in a number of illegal financial transactions and in such circumstances if they are granted bail, as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting their bail applications, there is a strong possibility of applicants fleeing from justice and also they may tamper with the crucial evidence or make influence to the witnesses. This Court is also of the view that the present matter relates to serious economic offence, which may affect the economy of the country. The applicants have committed gross violation of the provisions of the GST Act. Wrongful availment / utilization of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 315 Cr. has been made by them and this amount will increase a lot with the advancement of the investigation. The Court genuinely feels that at this stage there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants. The maximum period of imprisonment provided for such offence under the GST Act, which is five years, causes no hindrance in rejection of bail applications in such type of cases relating to economic offences.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature and gravity of offence, which is an economic offence in nature, complicity of accused, role of the applicants and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have not made out a case for bail. The bail applications are liable to be rejected and the same are accordingly rejected.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1086 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Validity of summons issued u/s 70 - Proper officer - Whether issuance of summons u/s 70 of the CGST Act is hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act ? - HELD THAT:- It is evident that against the issuance of notice by the State Authorities, petitioner had preferred writ petition before the High Court and had not put in appearance before the State Authorities. In the judgments referred to by counsel for the respondents, it is held that scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 of the CGST Act is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on subject matter, whereas the latter deals with power to issue summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words “proceedings” and “inquiry” cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the respondents to invoke the power u/s 70 of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court in "Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, [2021 (9) TMI 713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, Court has also held that in issuance of summons for conducting an inquiry and to obtain a statement from the appellant cannot be construed to be bar u/s 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Thus, we are of the considered view that issuance of summons u/s 70 of the CGST Act is not hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the present Civil Writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.
............
|
