9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India annulling and quashing the Show Cause Notice No. DGGI/MZU/I&IS'B'/12(4)16/2020 dated 27.9.2023(Exhibit "A") issued by the Respondent No. 2; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Prohibiting the Respondents themselves, their officers and subordinates to refrain from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of and/or in furtherance of and/or in adjudication of the impugned Show Cause Notice No. DGGI/MZU/I&IS'B'/12(4)16/2020 dated 27.9.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place on the Petitioner's platform. It is contended that payment for the contract can either be settled through the Petitioner's platform, or it can be settled directly between the buyer and seller. The Petitioner does not guarantee settlement of transactions by way of delivery of goods or payment. The Petitioner merely charges transaction fees for providing the platform to its members for the purpose of e-auction. Such platform is utilized for auctions of taxable as well as exempted goods. 3. It is contended by the Petitioner that, in February 2020, Respondent No. 2 had initiated investigation and issued summons to the Petitioner for seeking certain data and explanation regarding its business model, which was furnished by the Petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted its reply dated 28th July 2023, stating that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any TCS under Section 52 of the CGST Act. 7. It is on such backdrop, on 21st August 2023, Respondent No. 2, the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Mumbai, issued an intimation in form DRC-01A to the Petitioner intimating that the Petitioner is liable to pay differential TCS liability amounting of Rs. 376,33,56,706/-. The Petitioner filed its reply dated 28th August 2023 against DRC-01 stating that the Petitioner is not liable to discharge any TCS liability. It is in this conspectus that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27th September 2023 came to be issued to the Petitioner proposing to recover the said amount as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, when the Petitioner has raised an issue of the maintainability of the alleged demand on the ground that Section 52 of the CGST Act is not applicable, and more particularly considering the nature of the business and transaction involved, it would be appropriate that the adjudicating officer considers the same as preliminary issues and decide the same first in accordance with law. 12. In this view of the matter, we propose to dispose of this Petition by permitting the Petitioner to raise such preliminary issues before the adjudicating officer and the same shall be taken into consideration and decided by him in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
