9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner has not replied to the respective show cause notices which preceded the impugned orders - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has made a first attempt to reply to the show cause notice, after the impugned orders have been passed on 09.11.2021. The petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Service Tax enactments. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, dated 09.11.2021 for the assessment years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) of the respective Goods and Service Tax enactments, 2017. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d orders came to be passed on 09.11.2021, an attempt was made by the petitioner to give a reply on 12.11.2021. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the same, which also bears the seal of the department. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submits that there is no merits in the present writ petition and therefore the petitioner should be directed to work out an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x enactments. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner would be required to deposit only 10% of the amount as a condition for pre-deposit, I am inclined to quash the impugned order in turn, subject to the petitioner paying a sum of ₹ 7.5 lakhs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such deposit is made by the petitioner within such period, the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
