9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (in short 'Rules'). 2.The petitioner had made a representation for unblocking of the account. This representation was taken up for consideration by the Assistant Commissioner (RAL)(FAC). A notice was issued on 15.04.2021. The petitioner was informed that Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been availed allegedly, fraudulently and hence there was a liability both for CGST and SGST. 3.The petitioner was called upon to file objections and was also heard. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 16.07.2021, considering the request of the petitioner for unblocking of credit under Rule 86A in its favour. 4.Rule 86A reads thus: '[86A. Conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed by him under sub-rule (1) may, upon being satisfied that conditions for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger as above, no longer exist, allow such debit. (3) Such restriction shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction.]' 5.While passing an order lifting the blocking of credit, the assessing authority is undoubtedly required to examine whether such block has been validly made and Sub-Rule 2 states that the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him may lift the block, upon being satisfied that the conditions for disallowing the debit of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) no longer exist. 6.It is thus incumbent upon the officer concerned to examine every as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 10.The petitioner responded to the show cause notice relying on proceedings dated 16.07.2021. The submissions made before R1 were reiterated before R3, the assessing officer, and, infact response dated 15.11.2022 relies, lock, stock and barrel, on proceedings dated 16.07.2021 only. After considering the explanation and hearing the petitioner in detail, R3 has proceeded to pass the impugned order of assessment on 05.01.2023. 11.Mr.Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously put forth the argument that while R1 has accepted the explanation of the petitioner with regard to the same transactions, it was incorrect for R3 to have arrived at a contrary conclusion holding that the transactions had been conducted with fict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the departmental enquiries, concludes that the transactions were fictitious as the suppliers did not exist. 15.As regards the bank statements, there is an explanation putforth in the order to the effect that cash has been credited and debited the same day and hence the transactions constituted classic circular transactions. 16.True, R3 ought to have made reference to order of R1 dated 16.07.2021 and undoubtedly, this is a flaw in the assessment order. However, in my considered view, it is not a fatal flaw. The power of an assessing officer under Section 73/74 is wide and proceedings for assessment may be initiated in any circumstance where it appears to the proper officer that the claim of ITC by an assessee is incorrect. 17.The mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
