9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 06.10.2022, the OIO dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the registration of the Petitioner and the impugned order-in-appeal dated 30.05.2023; b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the CGST Authorities to refund an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs), deposited during the course of visit and investigation; c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the Respondents to restore the registration of the Petitioner immediately; d) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) above; e) for costs of this Petition and orders thereon;" 2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the cancellation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Delhi North Commissionerate visited and searched her premises. She claims that they also took possession of a few documents from her premises without drawing any panchnama. She claims that she was not present during the course of the search but her father-in-law (Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain), who was present at the premises at the material time, was compelled to tender a statement. He was also pressurized to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Initially, Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain resisted the said demand but the concerned officers continued to pressurise him. He succumbed to their pressure and in order to avoid any confrontation, deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) through DRC-03 dated 07.09.2022, after consulting with the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the CGST Act'). However, the said appeal was rejected by the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2023. This has led the petitioner to file the present petition. 11. It is material to note that the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2022 was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. 12. In terms of Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, an appeal from an order of an Adjudicating Authority is required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said order. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner was required to file an appeal before 28.01.2023. However, the petitioner filed the same on 13.02.2023. The petitioner had along with the appeal filed an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of her GST Registration. It is material to note that the Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2022 also contained a tabular statement, which indicated that no tax was found payable. It is trite law that an authority that is vested with the power to take a decision is required to independently exercise the power and cannot do so on mere directions of another authority, without independently satisfying itself of the said decision. In the present case, it is apparent that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2022 has been passed solely on the directions of another authority, without considering the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.10.2022. Plainly, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2022 cannot be sustained. 15. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
