2021 (4) TMI 418 - HC - GST

Availment of ITC - purchase of goods from Non-Existing Dealers - section 79 (1) (C) read with rule 145 (1) of J.G.S.T Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Let the matter be listed on 27.04.2021. Meanwhile, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim stay at this stage. However, it is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate request to the competent authority of Steel Authority of India Limited not to take coercive steps against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenges to adjudication orders for different tax periods, Allegations of ITC availment from Non-Existing Dealers, Issuance of Garnishee Notices, Interlocutory applications for interim relief, Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication order, Adequacy of opportunity to produce documents, Time granted for filing counter affidavit, Decision on interim stay.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Jharkhand High Court involves four writ petitions challenging adjudication orders for different tax periods concerning the same petitioner. The proceedings were initiated under section 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging the petitioner's availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from Non-Existing Dealers. Garnishee notices were issued to various entities, which are being challenged through interlocutory applications.

The petitioner sought interim relief regarding Garnishee Notices issued to the Steel Authority of India Limited, emphasizing an offer made by the Authority in an e-auction. The petitioner argued that the order under section 74 was issued in violation of natural justice principles, pointing out delays in receiving the certified copy of the adjudication order. The petitioner claimed to possess relevant documents like Tax Invoices, e-Way Bills, and Consignment Notes to prove lawful purchases from registered dealers.

The petitioner's counsel contended that adequate opportunity was not provided to produce requested documents and highlighted the pending period for appealing against the impugned order. The State's counsel was granted two weeks to file a counter affidavit, and the matter was scheduled for the next hearing on a specified date. The Court decided not to grant an interim stay but allowed the petitioner to request the Steel Authority of India Limited to refrain from taking coercive actions.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various legal aspects, including challenges to adjudication orders, issuance of Garnishee Notices, principles of natural justice, document production, and the decision on interim relief. The Court's detailed analysis and directions provide a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the petitioner's concerns.