|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 1574 Records
-
2024 (12) TMI 1094
Recovery of service tax with interest and penalt - fraud or suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court would be loath in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the wake of availability of a statutory remedy. However, pointed out herein after there apparently exist such extraordinary circumstances which makes the present case exceptional.
True it is that the petitioner was remiss in promptly replying to the show cause notice and had replied belatedly on 07.06.2022, after about 17 months of receipt of the show cause notice. However, the fact remains that if it was a matter of surrender of the premises specific registrations and a centralized service tax registration, the impugned order should have considered this aspect meticulously when prima faice, the petitioner had filed a return under the centralized service tax registration.
As can be noticed from the impugned order though opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner it did not produce documentary evidence regarding the different premises/branches so as to enable respondent no. 2 to examine if the taxable amount mentioned in the show cause notice was included in the amount of taxable value of Rs. 39,12,65,336/-, for financial year 2014-2015, in respect of which the petitioner had filed the return and paid the tax under the centralized service tax registration. In absence of such particulars/documents that the decision was taken and the impugned order was passed confirming the show cause notice.
It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the matter to respondent no. 2 for taking a fresh decision by extending the petitioner an opportunity to produce documents/accounts to substantiate its stand in the reply dated 07.06.2022.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1093
Recovery of duty with interest and penalty - wrongfully claiming benefit of exemption under Sl.No.84 of N/N. 6/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 (for the period December 2009 to 15/03/2012) and under Sl.No.332 of N/N. 12/2012-CE dt. 17/03/2012 - case of Revenue is that since pole shoe is a part of rotor being not used inside the factory for manufacture of WOEG, benefit of notification is not admissible - Extended period of Limitation - it was held by CESTAT that 'After analysing the facts, the Tribunal concluded that there is a difference between device and system and upholding the finding of the Commissioner, held that module mounting structure is a part of solar power generating system, hence not covered under the said entry.'
HELD THAT:- The view taken is concurred with - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1092
SSI Exemption - bona-fide belief that the value of Branded Goods (whether exempt or otherwise) was not to be included while computing the cap limit of Rupees four crores - impugend order passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law - violation of principles of natural justice - Invocation of Extended period of limitation.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The department issued first show cause notice (SCN-1) on 09.04.2009 for the period January 2008 to March 2008 without invoking the extended period of limitation but subsequently on 19.08.2009, the department issued another show cause notice (SCN-2) for the period April 2007 to December 2007 by invoking the extended period of limitation, and both the show cause notices arose out of the same audit report. We find that it is a settled position of law that in a subsequent show cause notice arising out of the same audit report, the allegation of suppression cannot be alleged and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant.
SSI exemption as per N/N. 8/2003-CE - HELD THAT:- It is found that if the department’s view that such branded medicaments are exempted in terms of Notification No. 4/2006 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the condition 3A(b) refers to the clearance of branded goods which are specifically excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003. The fact that same are entitled to some other exemption notification, will not change the complexion of the said provisions of (b) of Para 3A of the Notification and taking the view as advanced by the Revenue, would amount to introduce a new condition or to change the unambiguous wording of such clause, which is not permissible in law.
The impugned order is not sustainable on limitation as well as on merits and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1091
Excise duty on waste material - Order-in-Original passed without affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The first show cause notice dated 06.01.2012 involving the demand of Rs. 9,38,922/- on identical issue was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.01.2014 and the Department did not file the appeal against the said order and it has attained finality, therefore, for the subsequent show cause notice, the demand cannot be confirmed. Further, it is found that the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand on the ground not alleged in the show cause notice. Further, it is also found that it is a settled law that the demand cannot be confirmed on the ground which is not set up in the show cause notice.
In view of the fact that impugned order has travelled beyond the allegation the show cause notice. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1090
Dishonor of Cheque - Seeking quashment of summoning orders - crux of the contention is that the complaint lacks the mandatorily required averment to maintain a complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- The law enunciated in the decision in Ashok Shewakramani’s case [2023 (8) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT] is that to maintain a complaint and to frame a charge under Section 138 of the NI Act, there must be a specific averment against the person concerned that he was in-charge of, and responsible for the company concerned in the matter of conduct of its business. This position is now well settled and is being followed with alacrity.
Though, the learned counsel appearing for the second-respondent in all these cases, took pains to convince that the complaint concerned carried necessary averments required statutorily to maintain them however, on perusing the said complaints, there are no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid mandatorily required averments to attract an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act are conspicuously absent in all the complaint(s). To make the appellant to stand the trial, in such circumstances, would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. When that be the position, they are liable to be set aside in the light of Ashok Shewakramani’s case.
The appellant has made out a case warranting quashment of the common order - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1089
Challenge to judgment of conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - compounding of offences - whether this Court can accept Consent Terms filed by parties to put an end to the lis between the parties and grant relief of compounding of the offence as a sequitur thereto and on what terms?
HELD THAT:- In the backdrop of the provisions of Cr.P.C. and more specifically when present cases emanate from a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the next most relevant statutory provision which comes to the aid of parties and permits them to make Application for seeking compounding of the offence is Section 147 of N.I. Act. Section 147 provides for offences to be compoundable. It was introduced by the Amendment Act 55 of 2002 in the statute. It starts with a non-obstante clause and states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., every offence punishable under the N.I. Act shall be compoundable.
There is one more statutory provision which is required to be quoted which is utilised by parties to compromise and get Consent Terms accepted by Court and seek compounding of the offence. It is seen that the High Court Legal Services Committee receives Applications in various categories such as Civil Appeals, Family Court Appeals, Criminal Revisions, First Appeal (MACT) and Execution Petitions of Arbitral Award - it emerges that when the Lok Adalat makes an Award on the basis of a settlement or compromise arrived at between the parties, it proceeds to dispose of the case on the basis of the said Compromise / Consent Terms / Settlement which necessarily entails taking on record the Consent Terms and setting aside of the conviction and sentence, resultantly compounding of the offence.
The provisions of Sections 397, 401 and 320 of Cr.P.C. read alongwith Section 147 of N.I. Act would without doubt enable this Court to utilise its discretion in the given facts and circumstances of the present cases to accept the Consent Terms / Compromise even at this stage much belatedly after conviction. There can be no bar or impediment on this Court exercising its Revisional power alongwith its discretionary power under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. readwith the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to take on record the compromise arrived at between parties in matters which are compoundable having regard to the provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act.
There are no doubt in coming to the conclusion that in view of the extant power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., if parties approach the Court with Compromise / Settlement / Consent Terms, the same can be accepted, Applicant – Accused can be allowed to compound the offence and the conviction can be set aside.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1088
Challenge to order whereby demand has been raised against the present petitioner - petitioner was completely denied opportunity of oral hearing before the Assessing Authority - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Once it has been laid down by way of a principle of law that a person/assessee is not required to request for "opportunity of personal hearing" and it remained mandatory upon the Assessing Authority to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order, the fact that the petitioner may have signified 'No' in the column meant to mark the assessee's choice to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence.
Even otherwise in the context of an assessment order creating heavy civil liability, observing such minimal opportunity of hearing is a must. Principle of natural justice would commend to this Court to bind the authorities to always ensure to provide such opportunity of hearing. It has to be ensured that such opportunity is granted in real terms. The stand of the assessee may remain unclear unless minimal opportunity of hearing is first granted. Only thereafter, the explanation furnished may be rejected and demand created - Not only such opportunity would ensure observance of rules of natural of justice but it would allow the authority to pass appropriate and reasoned order as may serve the interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at the next/appeal stage, if required.
The impugned order dated April 16, 2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Balia to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1087
Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting appeal remedy under Section 107 of GST enactment - Levy of penalty u/s 129 (1)(a) of the respective GST enactment - discrepancy in consignment details - HELD THAT:- The GST registration, as per the extract from the GST portal, and the invoice raised by the consignor / seller, namely, M/s.M.R.Industrial Services, are one and the same. The e-Way Bill also indicates the same, except that the name of the consignee has been given as that of the petitioner.
This Court has, in several cases, come to the rescue of the assessee, where, errors are marginal and were not major or motivated with a view to evade tax. Since, the address of the consignee, namely, M/s.Athish Engineering Systems, as in the GST Registration certificate and the address in the tax invoice dated 25.02.2022 raised on the petitioner by the seller / consignor, namely, M/s.M.R.Industrial Services, are one and the same, minor discrepancy in the name can be condoned. However, this would require a proper determination by the respondent, although the petitioner has paid the penalty amount and has taken delivery of the consignment that was detained by the respondent.
The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits. The penalty paid by the petitioner, with a view to take delivery of the detained consignments may be refunded and shall be subject to the final outcome of the order that may be passed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1086
Seeking directions to the respondents to release the jewellery seized from its bank locker as per panchnama prepared by respondents - HELD THAT:- The respondents have acted in an arbitrary, illegal and unjustified manner in seizing the stock in trade of the petitioner company. Any jewellery recovered from the locker belonging to the company, would have to be presumed to be that of the company and it cannot be allowed to contend that the jewellery belongs to any individual director.
If such an attempt is allowed to be accepted, dispute would arise regarding the stock of the company itself. The company’s assets cannot be claimed by any individual director. However, the action of the respondent-department would result in the company’s assets being claimed by the individual director also, which cannot be allowed.
We find that the action was being initiated against the Oasis Group and the petitioner company. The respondents, therefore, were wholly unauthorized to withhold the stock in trade after the same was already demanded.
Additionally, keeping in view the provisions of Section 132B (1) (i) and the proviso thereto, the respondents were obliged to pass orders for releasing the jewellery. In this case, no orders were passed, therefore, the petitioner company was entitled to release of the assets of the company which had been seized.
We agree with the counsel for the respondents of the stock in trade of different value as on 17.05.2023 in comparison to the stock in trade as on 31.03.2023. However, the same would have no relevance keeping in view the statement of the concerned director, who admits that the stock in trade may be more apart from the gold seized from the premises as well as the gold and jewellery lying in the locker. Such excuse could not be a ground to withhold the stock in trade, which has been seized from the locker as there was no such power available with the respondents in terms of the proviso to Section 132 - WP allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1085
Deduction u/s. 57 - Disallowance of interest expenses claimed u/s 57 - nexus between loans taken and loans advanced for earning interest income - HELD THAT:- Nexus of the loan amounts from SBH and PNB, which was initially advanced to Nandan Corporation and subsequently transferred from Nandan Corporation to Tripoli Management, is established to the extent of Rs. 5 crore advanced on 20/06/2016.Since the assessee had offered the interest derived from Tripoli Management to tax, it is entitled to claim deduction in respect of interest payment on loan amount of Rs. 5 crores for the period from 20/06/2016 to 31/03/2017.
The assessee has submitted the working of interest on this loan of Rs. 5 crores for the period from 20/06/2016 to 31/03/2017 which works out to Rs. 36,58,096/-. We deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the working of interest on loan ofRs. 5 crores for the period from 20/06/2016 to 31/03/2017 and thereafter allow the deduction to the assessee. In case of any variation in the amount of interest, than the amount as worked out by the assessee, the AO should allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The finding of the CIT(A) in respect of LIC policy loan has not been controverted by the assessee. This loan was advanced to Nandan Corporation and we have already considered the transfer of a sum of Rs. 5 crore from Nandan Corporation to Tripoli Management and given our finding and direction in this regard earlier. The claim for separate deduction in respect of interest on LIC policy loan cannot be entertained. The disallowance of interest claim on LIC policy loan, as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), is upheld. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1084
Rectification u/s 154 - computation of tax liability u/s 115BAA - Rectification order passed by the CPC without giving any opportunity to the assessee and without assigning any reason for rejection of the option exercised by the assessee to compute its tax liability as per provisions of section 115BAA is invalid in law
HELD THAT:- We find the assessee in the instant case has exercised the option u/s 115BAA of the Act to tax its income at lower rate. The CPC for the assessment year 2020-21 has accepted the option exercised by the assessee and the assessee was taxed at lower rate as per provisions of section 115BAA.
For the current year in the original intimation, the CPC has accepted the computation made by the assessee, according to which, net tax payable was computed at Rs. 26,83,53,229/-. However, since the CPC had given short credit, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act. We find the CPC without assigning any reasons and without giving opportunity to the assessee enhanced the tax liability by determining the tax at normal rate as against u/s 115BAA.
Since the assessee has not withdrawn its option and not violated any of the provisions, therefore, the CPC in our opinion, was not justified in raising the demand by taxing the assessee at normal rate as against the provisions of section 115BAA. Since all the details were available before the CIT(A) / NFAC, therefore, CIT(A) / NFAC, in our opinion, should not have restored the matter to the file of the AO without deciding the issue himself especially when the AO did not respond to four reminders issued by him for submission of the remand report. We, therefore, hold that the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act was invalid in law to the extent of taxing the assessee at normal rate as against the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are allowed.
Short grant of TDS - order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the TDS claim - HELD THAT:- Since it requires verification at the level of the Assessing Officer, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in directing the AO to verify the claim and give necessary credit of TDS. We accordingly uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on this issue. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1083
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - Notice beyond four years - wilful act of assessee in order to reduce its taxable income for payment to non-resident without deduction of tax at source - HELD THAT:- If notice u/s. 148 is to be issued after expiry of four years, the assessee should have failed to disclose material facts and the ld. AO should have alleged and based his reasons to believe on that fact of non-disclosure by the assessee. If the AO does not state or allege that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the said assessment year, any other authority cannot infer or improve up on such reasons so recorded, therefore absence of such necessary jurisdictional facts mentioned in reasons, such reopening of the assessment cannot be upheld.
Merely because the AO has mentioned that non-disallowance of payment to non-resident without deduction of tax at source is a wilful act of assessee in order to reduce its taxable income is also an allegation that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, we do not find any reason to compare these findings of the AO for allegation of failure on the part of assessee for disclosure. Therefore, on this solitary ground, we quash the reassessment order passed by the ld. AO.
When the dispute is settled for a particular assessment year involving same point in VSV 2020, the learned assessing officer could not have reopened the assessment on the same issue - in this case originally additions were made for non-deduction of tax at source with respect to the payment made to the resident Indian, whereas the issue involved in the reopening of the assessment is with respect to payment made to the non-resident. According to provisions of section 5 of VSV 2020 Act on matters stated in the application for settlement of disputes are covered therein. In this case, the matter settled in the VSV Act and the matter for which reopening is made are two different issues and therefore there is no infirmity in the action of the learned assessing officer in not considering that the matter settled in VSV 2020 is the same as involved in the reopening. The judicial precedents cited before us are in fact related to section 263 of the income tax act, but those decisions have quashed the revisionary proceedings only for the reasons not the matter settled in that scheme and the matter for which the revisionary proceedings are initiated are same. Therefore, we dismiss this argument of the learned authorised representative. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1082
Dismissal of revision applications filed by each of these petitioners against orders made by the Commissioner (Appeals) - confiscation of Gold bars and cash - petitioners were not adequately given an opportunity to cross-examine - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have not made out any case for perversity. The findings are well supported by material on record. In any event, extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be equated to the appellate jurisdiction. The material on record is sufficient to sustain the adverse findings concurrently recorded by the three authorities. The allegation about the violation of natural justice is also not made out. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioners and only after those findings of fact had been recorded. Accordingly, there is no case made to interfere with the impugned order based on the alleged violation of natural justice.
All the authorities have examined the material on record fairly and reasonably. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioners. The three authorities' findings of fact indicate a conspiracy to smuggle gold from Dubai. There were contradictions in the stances raised by the petitioners. From the circumstances, it is apparent that none of the petitioners had no intention to declare the gold in their possession to the Customs authorities. They attempted to evade the law and smuggle this gold. There are certain observations about the complicity of the airline staff. However, it is refrained from taking cognisance of such observations because, even independent of such observations, it is satisfied that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
There are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order - Accordingly, all these petitions are liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed without any orders for costs.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1081
Challenge made to section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 - bona fide purchaser having paid his tax in hands of the original supplier who may have defaulted in not paying of the taxes - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the petitioner orally prays for allowing him to implead the Union of India as a party. He may file his amended memo of parties. Said prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
List again on 06.03.2025.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1080
Challenge made to section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 - fate of a bona fide purchaser having paid his tax in hands of the original supplier who may have defaulted in not paying of the taxes - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the petitioner orally prays for allowing him to implead the Union of India as a party. He may file his amended memo of parties. Said prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
List again on 06.03.2025.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1079
Attachment/freezing of demat accounts even though ceased to remain the director of the company - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- At least prima facie, if the petitioner is held liable after the action in terms of Section 89 of the MGST Act, which will essentially involve compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play, only then could action for attachment/freezing of the petitioner’s demat accounts have been initiated.
In terms of the statement, relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition stands granted. This will, however, not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law, including issuing notices in terms of Section 89 of the MGST Act and complying with principles of natural justice if any precipitative action is proposed against the petitioner. All contentions of all parties are left open should any action be proposed to be taken in terms of Section 89 of the MGST Act.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1078
Maintainability of petition - Exhaustion of alternate remedies before approaching the High Court - Jurisdiction of the Central Government to levy GST on alcoholic liquor for human consumption - HELD THAT:- The impugned show cause notice is not restricted only to the issue of production overhead charges. The Petitioner has classified their product as “DDGS, Husk & Cattle Feed (Spent Grain) under HSN 1104 instead of HSN 2303 and clearing/supplying the same on `Nil’ GST rate while HSN 2303 attracts GST @5%.” There is a serious issue with this classification. The show cause notice alleged that this is nothing but misclassification. Detailed though tentative reasons have been given in support of this allegation. Indeed, this is a matter that requires a thorough investigation.
In Whirlpool Limited [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that alternate remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
In the present case, there is no question of enforcement of any fundamental rights. This is also not a case of violation of principles of natural justice. The show cause notice is quite clear and provides the basis for issuing the same. This is also not a case where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
Recently, in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court surveyed the precedents about exhaustion of alternate remedies. By adopting the reasoning therein, no case is made to interfere with the impugned show cause notice or issue a declaration sought by the Petitioner without verifying the crucial factual aspects.
Thus, no case is made to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice - petition is liable to be dismissed, and it is hereby dismissed with no costs order.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1077
Challenge to order in Appeal and consequential summary of the demand - time limitation - appeal preferred by petitioner has been rejected on the ground of being filed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure-3) for not filing returns for a continuous period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner duly filed its reply on 07.04.2022, however, the same was not considered for the reasons mentioned in the order for cancellation of registration (Annexure-4). Thereafter, petitioner, after a lapse of almost 17 months from the date of passing of impugned order of cancellation of registration filed an appeal and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation.
It appears that under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017, there is a period of limitation of 3 months prescribed, however, the petitioner, as stated hereinabove, filed the appeal not only beyond the period of limitation of few days; rather he filed the application after a delay of almost 17 months and no reasons have been assigned.
There are no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file its return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand, petitioner-Firm filed appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of almost 17 months which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The instant writ application stands dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1076
Timeliness of the order u/s 129 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The print of sent mail is doubtful because petitioner filed appeal on Form GST APL-01 giving date of order as 27th September, 2024. The appeal was successfully uploaded. There is also said letter dated 18th October, 2024 written by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to petitioner, in which there is clear mention of 27th September, 2024 as date of the order. Furthermore, sub-rule (5) in rule 142 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires summary of the order issued, inter alia, under section 129, to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. There is no dispute that this was done on 27th September, 2024.
The impugned order is found to have been made on the 8th day from date of service of the notice specifying penalty. It does not meet the requirement under sub-section (3) of section 129. It is therefore liable to be and is set aside and quashed - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1075
Blocking of account and Input Tax Credit under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - wrongful availment of ITC showing fake invoices - concerned firms were found to be non-existent - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 86-A of the Act have been rightly exercised after receiving information of there being fake income tax credit claims claimed by the petitioner. It is the prima facie view which is required to be taken up by the respondents before taking action under Section 86-A of the Act and at that stage, there is no occasion for issuing any show cause notice or for affording of any opportunity of being heard as the said aspect is to be only dealt at the stage show cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act. It is to protect the revenue that the provisions of Section 86-A have been provided.
However, since the entire provisions of the Act are for the purpose of bringing a harmonious conduit between the businessmen and taxing authorities, it is all the more necessary that if any proceedings are to be initiated or are taken up against any of the businessmen, the same should be decided expeditiously. Here it is found that the order was passed of blocking the input tax credit on 20.02.2023 and after one year, again the blocking order has been issued, but at the same time, so far as the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act are concerned, they are yet to culminate the final order.
The respondents are directed to pass the final order expeditiously, preferably within one month from today, and so far as the petitioner is concerned, it should be allowed to operate its account as by now, more than one and a half year have elapsed since the account of the petitioner was blocked - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
