9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1219 - HC - GSTInability and omission to file a detailed response/reply along with relevant material to the Show Cause Notice - direction to furnish copies and extracts of the seized documents, data, computer etc., to the petitioner-Company - HELD THAT - A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the respondent No. 3 conducted search and seizure operations on 01.03.2024 during the course of which, material belonging to the petitioner viz., material found in the premises of sister entity of the petitioner viz., sales and purchase registers, books of accounts, detailed data were seized by the respondent No. 3. The explanation offered by the petitioner that on account of the said search and seizure operations conducted by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was not in a position to submit a detailed reply along with necessary material to the Show Cause Notice deserves to be accepted and the impugned orders at Annexure-H and H1 dated 15.04.2024 deserve to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No. 2 for reconsideration to the stage of submitting reply to the Show Cause Notice and by issuing further direction to the respondent No. 3. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Petition seeking writ of Certiorari to set aside Show Cause Notice, impugned order under Sec 73 (9) of CGST and KGST Act, summary of order in Form GST DRC-07; Alternatively, seeking writ of Mandamus for fresh adjudication; Mandamus to provide seized documents and data. Analysis: The petitioner sought various reliefs through the petition, including setting aside a Show Cause Notice, an impugned order under the CGST and KGST Act, and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ of Mandamus for fresh adjudication if the previous reliefs were not entirely granted. The petitioner also sought a Mandamus for the provision of seized documents and data related to the company. Upon hearing the counsels and examining the records, it was found that the respondent No. 2 had issued an intimation and a subsequent Show Cause Notice to the petitioner based on an Audit Report. The petitioner failed to respond to the initial intimation, citing later seizure of relevant documents by respondent No. 3 as the reason for the delay. The respondent No. 3 had conducted a seizure operation at the business premises of the petitioner's sister entity, resulting in the confiscation of crucial documents and data. The court acknowledged the impact of the seizure operation on the petitioner's ability to respond adequately to the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration. The court also directed respondent No. 3 to provide copies and extracts of the seized documents, sales and purchase registers, and books of accounts to the petitioner within a specified timeframe to enable a detailed response to the Show Cause Notice. In the final order, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration. The directive for providing necessary documents to the petitioner within a stipulated period was also included in the order to facilitate a comprehensive response to the Show Cause Notice.
|
