9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure - A) passed by the Respondent No.2; and thereby be pleased to issue appropriate direction and/or order directing the Respondents for de novo adjudication; and (a)(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure F-1), as well as letter dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure-F-3) issued by the Respondent no.2 with consequential effect; and (b) Pending admission and final hearing of this Petition this Hon'ble Court by way of interim relief be pleased to restrain the Respondents to take any coercive action against the Petitioner in view of the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the GST Rules, a reply dated 12.8.2021 was filed along with purchase bills and credit note etc. 2.4 Thereafter, Form GST DRC-01A, Part-A, dated 17.12.2021 came to be issued upon the petitioner intimating, inter-alia, to make payment of Rs. 13,60,346/- towards CGST and Rs. 13,60,346/- towards SGST under Section 73(5) of the GST Act. In the said intimation, it has been recorded that the petitioner has claimed input tax credit of Rs. 1,56,76,294/- as per GSTR-3B return while input tax credit of Rs. 1,29,55,602/- is available as per GSTR-2A and thereby, it was alleged that the petitioner has wrongly claimed differential credit of Rs. 27,20,692/-. 2.5 Thereafter, Form DRC-1, Part-A, came to be issued directing, inter-alia, the petitioner to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kuntal Parikh for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order dated 7.4.2022 and consequential letters dated 28.9.2022 and 11.10.2022, has mainly made the following submissions : (1) Learned advocate submitted that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law being completely against the principles of natural justice and against the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. He further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was not granted any personal opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned adverse order. Thus, according to learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned order and the consequential r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch order deserves to be quashed. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, it is also apt to take a look of sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, which can be quoted as under : "(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings." 6. Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
