TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- It appears that the respondents have unsuccessfully tried to defend their action, inasmuch as, in para 7 of their supplementary counter affidavit quoted herein above mentioned that the concluding paras of the said inspection report dated 11.01.2020, were treated as notice under Section 73 upon the petitioner The above statements show that the petitioner has been only informed that if he fails to appear before the prescribed authority on prescribed date, the proceeding under Section s 73, 50(1) and 125 will be initiated. The respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner has ever ignored the directions given in the inspection report rather it appears from the entire order sheet (Annexure 3 series) that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no.3. (ii) (For issuance of further appropriate writ/direction/order including writ of declaration, declaring that the purported order passed by respondent n o.3 (Annexure 3) in alleged exercise of power under Section 61 73 of JGST Act, 2017 without having any authority for doing so, as communicated to the petitioner vide Form GST DRC 07 dated 04.12.2020 as well as Form GST DRC 08 dated 07.12.2020 is wholly illegal and arbitrary having been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the JGST Act, and in utter violation of the principle of natural justice actuated with malice in law against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application are that on 11.1.2020 by the order of Joint Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.01.2020, petitioner was served summary of the order in Form GST DRC 07 separately for the period 2017 18, 2018 19, 2019 20 and 2020 2021, all dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure 4 series) wherein alleged amount of tax, interest and penalty have been levied against the petitioner by the Respondent No.5 in spite of the fact that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the respondent No.3 pursuant to the said inspection. The petitioner was also served three rectification order s as well as summary of rectification/withdrawal order in Form GST DRC 08 all dated 07.12.2020 (Annexure 5 series) which were also issued by respondent no. 5 in respect to three of the Form GST DRC 07 issued previously against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Vishnu Deo Bhagat, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry counter affidavit has been filed on 16.6.2022 wherein the respondents, in a sense have admitted that procedure has not been followed. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, A.C. to AAG II relied upon the supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the concluding paras of the inspection report dated 11.1.2020 itself provides the information as regard to the notices under Section s 73, 50(1) and Section 125 of the JGST Act and as such it should be treated that notice under Section 73 has already been issued and served upon the petitioner. For brevity, relevant paragraph nos. 6 to 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 16.6.2022 are quoted herein below: 6. That, it is further submitted that, the said inspection dated 11.01.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have unsuccessfully tried to defend their action, inasmuch as, in para 7 of their supplementary counter affidavit quoted herein above mentioned that the concluding paras of the said inspection report dated 11.01.2020, were treated as notice under Section 73 upon the petitioner The above statements show that the petitioner has been only informed that if he fails to appear before the prescribed authority on prescribed date, the proceeding under Section s 73, 50(1) and 125 will be initiated. 8. The respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner has ever ignored the directions given in the inspection report rather it appears from the entire order sheet (Annexure 3 series) that the petitioner has not only appeared on the date as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 procedure of notice under Section 73 has already been prescribed hence any other such deemed notice, can be treated no notice in the eye of law. 9. In this regard reference may be made to the case of M/s Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Ors. W.P.(T) No.3908 of 2020, this Court has categorically held that any order passed without complying the requirement as prescribed under Rule 142 of JGST Rules, 2017 is against the principle of natural justice. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is extracted herein below: 18. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court and we fully agree with the law laid down in the case of NKAS Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and, accordingly, it is held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
