9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day i.e., on 06.07.2022. It is clear that once the petitioner s refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is sustained. The fact that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication, persuades to hold that, at this stage, the impugned show-cause notice is premature - the impugned demand notice dated 14.06.2022 is set aside, with liberty to the respondent to trigger the process under Section 75 of the Act and the attendant rules, once clarity is attained with regard to the outcome of the pending appeal lodged by the petitioner. Petition disposed off. - W.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal plea of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice (SCN) issued earlier i.e., SCN dated 08.02.2021, has already been adjudicated by the concerned authority, via the order dated 12.05.2022. 2.1. Concededly, via the aforementioned adjudication order, the refund claim lodged by the petitioner was rejected. 2.2. We may note that the petitioner had sought a refund of Rs. 12,71,426/-. 3. According to Mr Seth, the adjudicating authority concluded that the refund was founded on forged input tax credit [in short ITC ] claim and the same had to be rejected. 3.1. As noted above, the order dated 12.05.2022 was predicated on the SCN dated 08.02.2021, which adverted to Section 73/74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 [in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent/revenue has been articulated, as recorded hereinabove, by Ms Bansal. 7. It is clear that once the petitioner s refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is sustained. 7.1. The fact that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication, persuades us to hold that, at this stage, the impugned show-cause notice is premature. 7.2. In the event the appeal were to be dismissed, it would then be open to the respondent/revenue to take recourse to Section 75 of the Act and the attendant rules framed thereunder. 8. Therefore, the impugned demand notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
