|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1442 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1282
Clandestine removal - Seizure of Pen Drive from the premises of another party, contains the “Production & Dispatch of Sponge Iron” - Demands along with interest and penalty - difference between the Excel Sheet production figure and the RG1 figure - excess / unaccounted production of sponge iron - modus operendi - HELD THAT:- We find that apart from heavily relying on the pendrive and recorded statements, the Revenue has made no effort to bring in corroborative evidence to fortify its claim of clandestine removal. There is no discussion about procurement of materials / inputs, the input – output ratio analysis, electricity consumption, statement of purported sellers of inputs, purported buyers of the finished goods, movement of vehicles and statement of such vehicle drivers / owners. While the Revenue is not required to bring in pinpoint and precise evidence but still efforts have to be made to ensure that sufficient evidence is produced in support of their case.
From the present proceedings, we find that even within the pen-drive the Revenue claims that part of the same is accounted for in the RG 1 records and clearance has been made on payment of Excise Duty. The quantification has been done by comparing the RG 1 sales figures vis-à-vis the figures shown in the Pendrive data and admittedly the author of the Pendrive is not known and no statement has been recorded to this effect from that person. The procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions have not been followed while relying on the data contained in the pendrive.
As we have observed that entire case in respect of the all demands on different heads as observed in the table referred above, has been built up with miniscule evidence, with no corroborative evidence brought in whatsoever. Therefore, we have no hesitation to apply the ratio of the cited case laws in respect of Pendrive, non-allowing of cross-examination of the persons recording the statements, non-production of corroborative evidence, and set aside the impugned order on these counts in respect of the confirmed demands of Rs.1,47,93,916/-.
Since the demands are being set aside, the corollary interest and penalties also get aside.
The impugned Order is set aside towards the confirmed demand of Rs.1,47,93,516/- along with interest and penalty thereon. The penalty on the second appellant is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The appeals are disposed off thus.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1281
Demand of duty - Clandestine manufacture - demand with interest and various penalties - solely on the basis of private records found during the course of investigation - satisfying the tests laid down in the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - HELD THAT:- As none of those tests has been satisfied as from where the excess raw material has been procured by the appellant from where the excess labour has been employed to manufacture such a huge quantity of the goods, how much electricity has been consumed by the appellant, what is the production capacity of the plant installed in the factory premises, where the clandestine removal of the goods were sold and how the transaction were made by the appellant. None of these tests has been satisfied. Therefore, on that ground the demands are not sustainable.
Further in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex, Chandigarh versus Laxmi Engineering Works, (2010 (3) TMI 276 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT), the Hon’ble High Court observed that even if some record recovered during raid and corroborated by some supportable evidence holding that there was an attempt of clandestine production and removal of goods then it is necessary to have some positive evidence of clandestine production and removal of the goods. Admittedly, no such evidence is produced by the Revenue therefore, demand against the appellant is not sustainable.
Thus, it is alleged that appellants were involved in clandestine removal of goods on the basis of private records during the course of investigation and statements recorded during the course of investigation which were not corrugated by the tests laid down in the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) the demand of Central Excise duty is not sustainable against the appellant. As demand of duty is not sustainable, consequently, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. In these terms we drop the demand alongwith penalties imposed on the appellant.
In result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal filed by the appellants.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1280
Dishonour of cheques - returned back with the reason– “Funds Insufficient” - discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability Offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act - rebuttable the statutory presumptions - Challenged the acquittal of an accused - effect of the settlement entered into between the parties during trial - veracity of the receipts and payments - HELD THAT:- It was observed that even though the accused Sandeep had agreed to his signatures on the agreement to sale, however, it was disputed that the property had been sold. Also, as noted in the impugned judgments, the petitioner never produced the original agreement to sell. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that the sale price for the subject property by no stretch of imagination could be merely ₹ 4,50,000/- and the defence of the accused persons that the subject property had been only been mortgaged seemed more reliable in view of Exhibit CW1/D1. The petitioner has not contested the observation regarding price of the property and also not placed any material on record to controvert the said observation.
As far as the veracity of the receipts [Exhibit CW1/D2 (colly)] and payments are concerned, although the complainant had sought to explain that he had extended 2-3 loans to the accused Sandeep for a sum of ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 40,000/-, however, as noted by the learned Trial Court, no cogent explanation was furnished as to why he had received payments from the accused persons for over ₹ 3 lakhs as seen from the seventeen receipts and bank transactions. The learned Trial Court also noted that it is feasible that some of the receipts had been misplaced by the accused persons as the disputes pertain to the year 2011. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had made no mention of the prior loans in the complaint.
Even if the case of the complainant is taken at the highest, it is also peculiar to note that while a debt of ₹ 4.5 lakhs has been claimed to be due on part of the accused persons, the total amount of the cheques in dispute comes to ₹ 6.5 lakhs. No explanation has been given by the complainant as to why the cheques were drawn for an amount higher than the alleged debt of ₹ 4.5 lakhs.
The main thrust of the petitioner is on the fact that the parties had apparently settled the matter at one point and the respondents had failed to make the payments as per the settlement. It is argued that the sheer fact that the parties had settled the matter, shows the legitimacy of the debt. The accused persons had denied the settlement and contended that the statement dated 25.07.2014 was signed by accused Sandeep without reading the same. The accused Jyoti altogether denied any knowledge of the settlement. It was also stated that the petitioner had assured the accused Sandeep that he would withdraw the present complaints on receiving ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 40,000/-.
A party may enter into a compromise for a number of reasons, especially, to avoid undergoing through the harassment of trial and mitigate the uncertainty of their odds in litigation. A party may also enter into a settlement due to the relationship with the other party. Undisputably, once the settlement is arrived at between the parties and made part of the Court record, the same subsumes the original complaint. If the accused party fails to follow through with the settlement, it is open to the complainant to pursue the fresh cause of action that arises from breach of the settlement if the settlement has attained finality or to pursue the original complaint as has been done by the complainant in the present case. In the latter case, however, the complainant has to proceed in accordance with law and prove the foundational facts as alleged in the complaint as per the provisions of NI Act. The complainant however cannot pursue parallel proceedings in relation to the same transaction.
It is relevant to note that in the present case, the learned Trial Court kept the matters pending for compliance of the agreed settlement terms. Thereafter, when the accused persons failed to make the requisite payments, the matter was proceeded on merits.
On being pointedly asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has taken no steps to secure compliance of the settlement. There was no adjudication in the present case regarding existence of any debt before the parties entered into the settlement.
Insofar as the effect of the settlement on the merits of the present cases are concerned, as noted above, while it was open to the petitioner to pursue his civil and criminal remedies against non- compliance of the settlement, the mere fact that the accused had entered into a settlement cannot be construed to be an admission of debt and the complainant was still required to establish the foundational facts in the present case.
From appreciation of evidence, in the opinion of this Court, the respective respondents have been able to satisfy the test of preponderance of possibilities and rebut the presumptions stipulated in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
Thus, this Court finds no such perversity in the impugned judgments so as to merit an interference in the findings of acquittal.
The present appeals are dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1279
Interpretation of the expression "unless the award otherwise directs" in Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") - rate of interest and not entitlement of interest -Contractual work - invokation of the arbitration clause of the agreement - imposition of penalty/liquidated damages upon the complainant till the completion of work - HELD THAT:- The law with regard to the power of an Arbitrator to award interest for pre-award period, the interest pendent lite and interest post-award period is no more in dispute. Section 31(7)(a) provides that the Arbitrator has the power to award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or on any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. The grant of such interest during the pre-award period is subject to the agreement as regard the rate of interest or unpaid sum between the parties.
In view of the judicial pronouncement in R.P. Garg Vs. The General Manager, Telecom Department & Ors [2024 (9) TMI 1742 - SUPREME COURT], the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act is no more res- integra. The grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is mandatory. The only discretion which the Arbitral Tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded. Where the Arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply. Since in the present case the Arbitrator did not award the post-award interest in respect of Claims No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, petitioners would be entitled to the post-award interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as awarded by the learned executing court.
The grant of post-award interest is a statutory mandate and therefore even if non-grant of interest is not challenged by the petitioners, grant of post-award interest by the executing court would not amount to going beyond the decree. In the case of R.P. Garg Vs. The General Manager, Telecom Department & Ors. (supra), the post- award interest awarded by the executing court, even though specifically denied in the award by the Arbitral Tribunal, was affirmed in appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I am, therefore, not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that the grant of interest by the executing court would amount to challenging the award in execution proceedings or going behind the decree.
Thus, no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, passed by the learned executing court.
The petition is therefore dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1278
Recalling of order - Validity of the Orders obtained on the basis of the said fabricated SCNs - GST Registration retrospectively cancelled - Identifying the culprit who fabricated the SCN - HELD THAT:- In fact, the actual SCN is extremely detailed and gives the full reasoning for issuance of the same. It is further stated by the Department that the relevant paragraphs containing the “remarks” are missing from the SCN which forms a part of the subject petition filed by the Petitioner.
The Court prima facie, is of the opinion that this is a serious matter where the show cause notice has clearly been fudged with an intent to obtain a favourable order by this Court.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has issued notice to the client, however, the client has not contacted him since after the filing of the review petition.
Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject petition dated 27th February, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of the Petitioner who has deposed the affidavit dated 24th February, 2025 in the subject petition filed before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Further, Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner directed to file an affidavit as to who were the individuals who gave him the SCN which was annexed with the petition and forms the basis of the impugned order passed by this Court while disposing of the subject petition.
The subject writ petition is restored to its original number.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1277
Recalling of order - Validity of the Orders obtained on the basis of the said fabricated SCNs - HELD THAT:- Since all these matters arise out of fabricated SCNs and similar matters are pending before a Co-ordinate Bench of M/s Royal Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi. [2025 (5) TMI 1276 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court is of the opinion that, in order to avoid conflicting orders, it would be expedient that all the cases be dealt with by the Roster Bench where similar matters are pending.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1276
Recalling of order - Order was obtained by Fabrication of the SCN - Deletion of Material Fact from the SCN as supplied to HC - Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively - Revenue Challenged order [2025 (5) TMI 1275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- Mr. Panwar, ld. Counsel also points out that there are three further SCNs which were challenged in three separate writ petitions, where a similar fabrication has come to the knowledge of the Department.
Thus, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Department that the Department has further proceeded to file more such applications, challenging the respective SCNs in these writ petitions and the same are yet to be listed before this Court.
Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
i. The final order [2025 (5) TMI 1275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] passed by the Court in this writ petition shall stands recalled and any order giving effect to the said order of this Court shall also not be given effect to.
ii. The proprietor of the Petitioner Concern shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
iii. The Registry shall list all the three writ petitions mentioned above, along with the present writ petition, before this Court on the next date.
iv. Intimation shall be given by Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel to the Petitioners in those three cases as well so that they can remain present before this Court.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1275
Cancellation of registration retrospectively - Issuance of Non-reasoned SCNs - HELD THAT:- In view of the case Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and when the impugned order is tested on the aforenoted precepts, it becomes apparent that absence of reasons in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action. We are thus of the considered opinion that the writ petition is entitled to succeed on this short ground alone.
We accordingly allow the writ petition by modifying the impugned order and providing that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration shall come into effect from the date of the SCN i.e. 27 September 2024.
The stipulation in the impugned order of cancellation to come into effect from 25 November 2021 is consequently quashed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1274
Applicability of penalties under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner's failure to pay GST and file returns within the stipulated time - suppression of facts or not - contravention of the provisions of Section 37 of the CGST Act - it was held by High Court that 'Section 74 can be invoked for non-payment of tax if there is evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST can constitute suppression of facts if it is wilful and intended to evade tax. The statutory requirement to file monthly returns and pay GST is independent of the annual return deadline, and non-compliance can attract penalties.'
HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1273
Validity of tender for supply of items in pursuance of an advertisement - seeking to quash the agreement executed - Premature firm - newly constituted firm with a recently issued PAN and GST registration - validity of the contract granted - change in the status of the firm from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm - HELD TAHT:- It is apparent from the record that on the inclusion of the partner in the firm, merely the status of the firm has changed from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm whereas neither the substantive nature of work of the firm has been changed or modified nor it appears to us that any material alteration was made in that firm for the purpose of applying or for the purpose of grant of the tender in favour of the respondent No.5 firm.
Accordingly, the allegations of the petitioner are misconceived being based on no substance.
Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1272
Entitlement to budgetary support for the period July 2017 to September 2017 under the applicable scheme and notifications - rejection of claim on the ground that in terms of the computation prescribed in Circular, dated 27-11-2017, the appellant’s claim for budgetary support, after aggregating the tax liabilities and input tax credit and considering that the balance of input tax credit was in the negative, the appellant was not entitled to any budgetary support for the said period - HELD THAT:- The ‘clarification’ issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Finance Department, bearing No. FD-ST/29/2022-03, dated 26-04-2022, pertains to clarification with respect to determination of amount of reimbursement under (i) SRO 519 dated 21-12-2017 (ii) SRO 521 dated 21-12-2017 and (iii) SRO 63 dated 05-02-2018. All the said SROs pertain to the provision for budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units, operating in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. The SROs detailed the scheme for such budgetary support, in the shape of reimbursement of State taxes paid under the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The scheme, it specified, shall be limited to the tax which accrues to the State Government under the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after adjustment of the input tax credit paid by the manufacturing units. Clause 3.2 of the SRO 519 is similar to clause 5.4 of the Notification dated 05-10-2017.
As the departmental clarification dated 26-04-2022 also envisages month-wise details it stands to reason that claims could be raised accordingly.
The submissions of Deputy Solicitor of India for the respondents No. 1 and 2, not agreed upon, who was of the view that even though there was compliance of the order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directing the adjudicating authority to take steps in terms of the clarification dated 26-04-2022, yet clarification issued subsequently by the DPIIT, Nodal Central Agency, dated 21-09-2023, is to be given more weightage over and above the order of the High Court, which proposition by itself is preposterous and untenable.
Conclusion - Budgetary support under this scheme shall be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis namely for January to March, April to June, July to September & October to December.
The impugned judgment dated 06-05-2024 of the learned single Judge of this Court as also the order dated 01-03-2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 are set aside - appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1271
Detention of vehicle and goods - legality of the seizure - imposition of tax and penalty - No opportunity of proper hearing - violation of natural justice - non-compliance with the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents but despite repeated opportunities, no response has been submitted. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is now listed before the appellate authority on 22.05.2025. And it is submitted that every possible endeavor shall be made by the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal as also the application, referred to above, on the date fixed.
At any rate, he submits that if for any unforeseeable circumstances, the matter is not heard and decided on the date fixed, at best, the appeal as also the application moved by the petitioner shall be finally disposed of within two weeks’ thereafter.
In the wake of the above and, particularly, the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we refrain ourselves from passing any formal order/directions at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, in the event the matter is not decided as indicated above, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this appeal itself for its restoration and necessary orders.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1270
Territorial jurisdiction - Validity of order for attachment against persons outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner - challenge concerning the authority of a Principal Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The matter pertains to jurisdiction and/or authority and/or competence of the officer to issue order under Section 83 of the said Act, I have called upon the learned advocate for the State to make submissions.
Let their appointment be regularized.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1269
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - denial of ITC - HELD THAT:- The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, held that 'Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.'
Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in M/S. HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
The Department submits that he has sought instructions and according to the same, the matter shall be re-considered by the adjudicating authority - the impugned order dated 30th August, 2024 is set aside and the said issue, as captured by this Court in order dated 23rd April, 2025, shall be considered by the adjudicating authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1268
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - Petitioner was not provided with any opportunity for personal hearing and the impugned order was passed without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the above order would show that the reply of the Petitioner has not been considered. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
The impugned order is set aside. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the reply dated 7th November, 2023, filed by the Petitioner and shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1267
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - HELD THAT:- Upon considering the impugned order, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority observed that the reply was incomplete and no supporting documents are attached. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the same does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1266
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notifications Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax, 56/2023-Central Tax, 09/2023-State Tax, and 56/2023-State Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - reply by the Petitioner to the SCN not duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- On facts, however, a reply was filed by the Petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 28th May 2024 and the same was duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an appeal had already been filed in this matter challenging the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal shall be considered on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Thus, the impugned order is set aside. After hearing the Petitioner, the order shall be passed by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors and the decision in Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1265
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - non-appearance of the Petitioner at the personal hearing - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that an opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, let the Petitioner file an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with pre-deposit by 10th July, 2025.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.[2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1264
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - No opportunity to file a reply to the SCN - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - original petitioner passed away by the time the order passed, and legal heir representing the case - HELD THAT:- On facts, this Court is of the opinion that a personal hearing ought to be granted to the Petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration to the Adjudicating Authority.
All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1263
Challenge to SCN - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - mistake in the filing of Form GSTR-9 due to a clerical error, which led to the issuance of the SCN and the consequent impugned order - HELD THAT:- In light of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that since the reply filed by the Petitioner has not been considered while passing the impugned order, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
The impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file a fresh reply to SCN along with supporting documents. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
