9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the Proper Officer but the letter/notice Annexure P-10 to third party under Section 79 (1) (c) of the Act of 2017 was issued on 1.10.2021 which is less than three months period from the date of the recovery order No.34 of 2021 and 35 of 2021. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that no specific reasons have been assigned for issuing notice under Section 79 (1) (c) of the Act of 2017 for initiating proceedings under Section 78 of the Act before lapse of three months period. Considering that no order was served upon the petitioner as required under Section 78 of the act of 2017, as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of order /notice dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure P-10) shall remain s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 (1) of the Act of 2017 and after adjudication, the tax liability is to be determined specifying the actual tax liability, interest thereupon and also penalty for nonpayment of tax within the prescribed time limitation. Referring to provision of Section 78 of the Act of 2017, it is argued that the initiation of recovery can only be made after service of the orders passed by the Proper Officer of assessment of the tax liability including interest and the penalty if any on the amount of actual tax liability. It is further submitted that once the provision of Section 78 of the Act of 2017 prescribes for the service of order of assessment then it is the duty casted upon the Proper Officer to serve the order of assessment of the tax upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 79 (1) (c) of the Act was issued. The liability to pay GST is not disputed by the petitioner as appearing from documents annexed along with writ petition i.e. reply to the notice issued by department. Hence the petitioner cannot raise the dispute of initiating proceedings of recovery of tax issued against him. He also pointed out that in Annexure P-9 (filed in WPT No.218 of 2021), details of order is mentioned as - Order No.34 of 2021, dated 18.8.2021. Similarly, in two of the other notices, it is mentioned as the order No.32 of 2021 dated 12.2.2021 and Order No.33 of 2021 dated 12.2.2021. From the aforementioned recovery order/notice dated 12.2.2021, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore lapse of three months period. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already deposited ₹ 50/- lakhs of the total taxable amount as mentioned in Annexure P-1. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no order was served upon the petitioner as required under Section 78 of the act of 2017, as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of order /notice dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure P-10) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the total payable tax amount within a period of three weeks from today, adjusting amount which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
