9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order dated 30 April 2024, which rejected the petitioner's application for a refund. 4. Mr Shroff submits that though this order is appealable, this is a case of breach of natural justice. He submitted that even if the violation of natural justice is not considered for a moment, still, a case of remand is made out. He submits that the appeal is rejected due to some alleged procedural deficiencies. But no deficiency memo was ever given, and the Petitioner was denied the opportunity of refiling the appeal after clearing the shortcoming. Mr. Shroff relies on the decision of this Court in M/s Knowledge Capital Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition No. 61 of 2023 decided on 29 March 2023, in which, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner avoided or failed to respond to such show cause notice. The conclusion recorded in the impugned order reads as follows: - "Conclusion: This office had called upon you to show cause as to - 1. Why the transaction of supply of 'Infrastructure Support Services' should not be considered as the transaction of taxable supply as it has been established that the said supply has a 'Place of Supply' in India and cannot termed as transaction of 'Zero Rated Supply'? 2. Why tax under CGST/MGST/IGST should not have been levied on the transactions of supply of infrastructure support services to Google Singapore as the place of supply has been determined to be located in Mumbai i.e. Maharashtra? 3. Why the supply of making available th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions in response to the show cause notice. Merely seeking adjournments and then contending that adjournment applications were not responded to or decided one way or the other is not grounds to complain about any failure of natural justice. In this case, the petitioner must accept the blame for not responding to the show cause notice within the time granted and raising the contentions which have now been raised before us after the impugned order was made. Since there was no response we cannot fault the respondents for making the impugned order. 10. The interest of justice in such a situation would require the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 4 weeks from today to the 2nd respondent. Subject to depositing such costs within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
