9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner has a huge place of business from where the petitioner is trading in goods, such disputed question of facts cannot be decided in this summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition has to fail. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition dismissed. - Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.C.A.Venkatasivakumar For the Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has challenged the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment of reality by stating that the petitioner is engaged in Bill Trading without actually supplying the goods by merely inspecting the residence of the Director of the petitioner which is merely registered as the principal place of business of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that the respondents ought to have visited the additional place of business given in the GST Registration to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether the petitioner was indeed engaged in Bill Trading / Circular Trading to facilitate passing illegal Input Tax Credit to the customers. 7. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.16972 of 2023 in the case of one of the buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply of goods. That apart, it is submitted that summons was sought to be served on the petitioner's director on 22.09.2022, which was refused. 13. It is further submitted that the director of the petitioner was ask to appear before the respondents on 23.09.2022. However, there was no response. Therefore, the summons was stuck at the principal place of business on the same day in terms of Section 169(1b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. 14. It is submitted that another summons was served on the following date and was sent by post which was returned as unserved on 16.10.2022. It is therefore submitted that thereafter DRC-01 was issued on 10.01.2023, asking the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount DRC-01 dated 30.01.2023. 15. It is submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 19. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was unaware of the above submissions. He further submits that the petitioner was having a godown measuring to an extent of 10,000 sq.ft, where the goods were kept / stored for facilitating the inward and outward movement of the said goods. 20. It is submitted that the respondent did not specify the provision or regulation according to which the said Act was considered as illegal. The E-way Bills are authenticated documents generated by the respondent which is being considered as illegal. 21. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 142 read with Section 74 of the respective GST enactments. 26. The petitioner was also called for a hearing by two separate notices dated 14.03.2023 and 11.04.023. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the same, which has now culminated in the impugned order dated 25.04.2023. 27. The impugned order has been passed on 25.04.2023 is an appealable order in terms of Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Although attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner has a huge place of business from where the petitioner is trading in goods, such disputed question of facts cannot be decided in this summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. Therefore, this Writ P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
