TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proper officer has intended to summon the said person, however on account of paucity of time declined to do so. Such a course cannot be countenance for the same caused grave prejudice to the person against whom the said statement or document is sought to be relied upon. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the proper officer himself intended to summon the said witnesses, however did not do so on account of paucity of time, the impugned order to the limited extent, of the denial of input credit tax in respect of cancelled dealers, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication on the said aspect after summoning the said dealers/suppliers for the purpose of cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC with Mr. Parvesh Khanna, Mr. Rahul Sabharwal, Ms Priyanka Sabhawal Mr. Aartha Rathore, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Subham Kumar Mr Vipul Teotia, Advocates for R-5. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 29.12.2023 whereby an order has been passed against under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and a demand created against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner impugns the order dated 29.12.2023 to the limited extend that it confirms the demand in respect of denial of ITC to the petitioner with respect to the suppliers whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payer wishes to make addl. Submissions. The same is allowed. It has also been conveyed, that in the interest of revenue, no relief on accounts of availing ITC from cancelled dealers will be granted. NOH: 13/12/2023. 6. Perusal of the proceedings sheet dated 01.12.2023 shows that a specific request was made by the petitioner for cross-examination of the cancelled dealers whose ITC was proposed to be denied to the petitioner. The proper officer has noted that the proper officer intended to summon the cancelled dealers/suppliers of taxpayer for cross-examination, however, on account of paucity of time, the request was disallowed. 7. Denial of the right of cross-examination can cause grave and serious prejudice to an entity. In the instant case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.07.2022 and was alleged not to be a voluntary deposit and a deposit made under pressure in presence of the visiting team. Said issue has also not been dealt with in the impugned order. 11. Reference may also be had to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2023 in WP (C) 17171/2022 titled Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods Service Tax Act, wherein an involuntary deposit was directed to be refunded. 12. Since the contention of the petitioner is that the deposit was not voluntary and was under coercion and a request for refund was made to the proper officer, the proper office should have considered the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, while reconsidering the issue with regard to denial of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
