9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to Annexure P/1, dated 13.032019. If, the contents of paragraph-6 of the petition are taken into consideration, the same would reveal that the petitioner did not file any reply, but has made an attempt to demonstrate that he sought documents from the respondent No.2 to have some clarity on the issue, but those documents were not supplied to the petitioner and hence for want of those documents, the petitioner could not file reply. The explanation so put forth by the petitioner has no substance inasmuch as, neither there is any reply nor there is any application filed by the petitioner on the record by which he sought documents as well as detail of the transaction from the respondents. Whether the petitioner was aware about the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annex.P/2) passed by Respondent No.2. (iv) Any other appropriate writ/order/direction, which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly, be issued in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Ferrous waste and scrap and is registered under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017). The petitioner was served with a notice dated 13.03.2017 under Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017. The said notice ensued in passing of an order dated 28.05.2019 (Annnexure P/2) by which the tax liability was imposed upon the petitioner alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises, Chhatarpur and as such liability under Section 74 (1) was fastened upon the petitioner. Thus, he submits that apparently in the original show cause notice as well as the original order no descriptions were detailed. Thus, the petitioner in absence of the relevant detail could not defend itself and hence has prayed that the impugned order be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that on 11.03.2019, the authorities found that as regards the transaction pertaining to M/s V.K. Enterprises, Chhatarpur, petitioner had availed the benefit of ITC since the petitioner had received inward supply from M/s V.K. Enterprises, Chhatarpur. This it is urged by respondents motivated the Revenue to issue communication/no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner on the record by which he sought documents as well as detail of the transaction from the respondents. It is also important to note that before passing the order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner had submitted his reply (Annexure R/2) to the notice dated 11.03.2019 in which, the petitioner itself had disclosed the transaction with regard to M/s V.K. Enterprises, Chhatarpur and along with the reply, the petitioner had annexed the relevant documents pertaining to transactions i.e. copy of bill, e-Way bill and GSTR. 11. Thus, the moot question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was aware about the transactions which were taken note of by the respondent to issue a notice under Section 74 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
