9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been preferred for following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the show cause notice issued under Reference no. 98 dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure-5,) under section 73(1) and Rule 142(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Taxes, (JGST) Act (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the ex-parte order being Reference no. 201 dated 15.09.2020 under section 73(9) of the JGST Act and DRC-07 dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure-10 & 11 respectively. (iii) For unblocking credit ledger which was blocked on 14.02.2020 to the tune of Rs. 5,18,731/- even before serving the show cause notice under the JGST Act. 3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although dropped a proceeding under section 74(1) of the JGST Act; however, initiated proceeding under section 73(1) of the JGST Act and straightaway issued a show cause notice. 4. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of proceeding u/s 73 of the Act itself certifies the fact that no fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of fact is there while availing ITC. She further contended that from the SCN, it is evident that so called non-existing supplier has duly obtained registration certificate from the Respondent department and has also filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period under consideration and has duly paid the tax and there is no mismatch in the figure as declared by the supplier in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar, learned AAG-II submits that in terms of the intelligence notes and on scrutiny of the returns filed and others related documents/registers of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had fraudulently availed the forwarded ITC by a nonexistent dealer (M/s. Maa Kali Steel). He further submits that due to prima facie case of fraudulent availment/utilization of ITC against the petitioner, an intimation under Rule 142 (1) (a) having reference no.40 dated 29.02.2020 was sent to the petitioner along with the letter no. 3985 dated 11.11.2019 requesting the petitioner to pay amount mention therein. However, despite the above issuance of intimation, the petitioner did not paid the tax liability as determined. As such, vide reference no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case, as stated hereinabove, no document has ever been served upon the Petitioner and/or no opportunity of hearing was given being in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also the mandate of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 has held that in a case where the respondents have relied upon the documents obtained during inspection in the premises of the petitioners on the basis of intelligence note, it should be given to the petitioners to enable them to properly answer the charges there passed upon. In the case at hand, it clearly transpires that the impugned adjudication order dated 15.09.2020, has been passed in ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
