9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of principles of natural justice; but bland assertions made without any substantiation thereof. The petitioner has also made averments against the inspection conducted alleging that the reasons to believe in the authorization of 12.08.2023 are mere reproduction of the provisions of Section 67(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Immediately, it is to be noticed that the authorization for inspection through produced as Annexure-7, it has not been challenged in the relief portion. Assessment made on various grounds of reversal of Input Tax Credit of purchase returns having not been effected - HELD THAT:- There being no legal grounds for demand, computation of demand having not been properly substantiated, mismatch of outw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. The writ petition having been filed within the period provided for appeal, we deem it fit to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal filed against Annexures 1 to 5, on merits, if it is filed within five weeks from today. In so far as the other order, (Annexure-6) is concerned, the petitioner has still one month time to file an appeal, as provided under the BGST Act and then again a further month, with application to condone delay. Petition dismissed. - Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Vishalaksh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Standing Counsel-11 JUDGMENT The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural justice or due procedure required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court would also interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is infringement of fundamental rights or where the orders and proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged and when there is a clear abuse of process of law. There is no such plea made by the petitioner in the present case against the impugned orders. 3. We see from the grounds that the assessment orders passed have been challenged as without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice; but bland assertions made without any substantiation thereof. The petitioner has also made averments against the inspection conducted alleging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner challenges the order of assessment on multifarious reasons which have been extracted in a table given to us across the Bar which again speaks of reduced output liability on credit notes, mismatch of outward supplies in GSTR-1 vis-a-vis e-way bill, excess ITC utilization, penalty for failure to furnish consumption details of fertilizers and so on and so forth. 6. We find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the assessment orders passed at this stage. 7. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition has been filed within the time provided for appeal; which alone cannot be a reason to bypass the appellate remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. We see that the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
