9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The concise facts leading to Ext.P6 orders are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in the trade of scrap goods falling under the subheading 7404, 3915 and 7204 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( in short ' the CGST Act') and other GST Laws. (ii) In November, 2020, the officers attached to the first respondent conducted a search at the petitioner's business premises and arrested the Managing Partner of the firm invoking the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioner has reason to believe that the search and arrest were motivated at the behest of the petitioner's rivals in business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegations in the writ petition. It is, inter alia, contended that the CGST Act and the CGST Rules framed thereunder is a self-contained code, which has an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances. There is a specific provision under Rule 159 (5) of the Rules, enabling the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 orders. It is without invoking the statutory remedy that the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed on the said preliminary ground. It is further contended that on the basis of complaints and information received by the Intelligence Wing of the respondents, they learnt that many fake invoice supplies have rampantly infested the market in respect of supply of scrap materials. In the investigation c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 5. Sri.Aswin Gopakumar argued that Ext.P6 orders are vitiated and smacked with mala-fides. It was his argument that the respondents can at the maximum impose penalty under Chapter XIX of the Act, going by the allegations in Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, passing of Ext.P6 orders under Section 83 of the Act is untenable and wrong because the said provision can be invoked only after the initiation of any proceedings under the Chapters XII, XIV or XV of the CGST Act. In addition to the above contention, though not specifically pleaded in the writ petition, the learned counsel argued that the first respondent does not have the powers to issue Ext.P6 orders. He drew the attention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner has approached this Court. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 7. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that the respondents have issued Exts.P1 and P2 show cause notices against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has not paid/short paid/erroneously refunded input tax credit by perpetrating fraud on the Government, that too by suppression and brazen manipulation. 8. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent demonstrates that the investigation is in progress and the respondents are prima facie found that the petitioner has indulged in fraudulent activities. Thus, the first respondent has deemed it fit to invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
