9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing Reference No. ZD291124078389W dated 19.11.2024 for tax period 2017- 18 in Annexure "B", to the extent of disallowance of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 19,07,237/-, along with applicable interest and penalty, as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, and ultra vires the provisions of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, along with all consequential actions arising therefrom. B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the adjudication order passed by the 1st Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ACCT/LGSTO-55/T.No.14634/2023-24 dated 08.11.2023 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, in Annexure "A", to the extent of disallowance of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.19,07,237/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said show-cause notice also, the first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 under Section 73 (9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs. 41,17,586/- including the tax, interest and penalty. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent issued notice dated 06.08.2024 under Section 79 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 directing attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts for recovery of the alleged tax dues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the pre-intimation notice under Rule 142 (1A) nor the show-cause notice under Section 73 (1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 were communicated or served upon the petitioner and he was not aware of the said proceedings. So also, physic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre- intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 8. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
