9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "CGST Act, 2017"). The petitioner No.1 is a proprietor firm engaged in the business of cement trading and steel trading from its office situated at 78-79, Mahadev Totla Nagar, Indore (M.P.). Likewise, the petitioner No.2 is also a firm engaged in the supply of TMT bars and steel items from its office premises situated at 385/390, Lokhandwala Complex, Goyal Nagar, Indore (M.P.). Both the petitioners are being represented by its proprietor. 02. The respondents No.2 & 3 are the authorities under the CGST & Central Excise posted at Indore. The respondents received an information that few units were engaged in availing / passing of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to certain units without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Panjon Limited, M/s Sanitax Chemicals Limited, M/s Purjaw Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Raunaq Laboratories Limited under Section 74 and 122 of CGST Act, 2017 by respondent No.3. 04. Noticee Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 have been directed to collect the non-relied documents within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A separate investigation has been conducted against M/s Rahul Steel and M/s Namrata Trade Star Ltd. regarding availing fake Input Tax Credit from non-existant firm. So far as the petitioner No.1 Rahul Steels is concerned, the allegation is that the firm has passed on the ineligible input tax of Rs.1,74,82,834/- by showing the fake supply of taxable value of Rs.14,45,73,325/- in the financial year 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that under Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, the assessment proceedings cannot be declared invalid on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) & (2). The impugned show-cause notice was served upon the petitioners on 29.09.2023 and as per requirement of Rule 142, it was uploaded in the website, there could be delay in uploading because of some technical glitch, but that will not give undue benefit to the petitioners. 08. In reply, Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa have categorically held that there cannot be common or joint show-cause notice for multiple assessment years, the authorities are required to issue a notice for each assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
