9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. To quash the show cause notice dated 14.02.2022(Annexure P/3); c. To hold that statement recorded on 08.10.2020 & 04.02.2022 are bad in law and cannot be relied upon in any proceedings; d. Any other relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the fact, circumstance and legal position of the case and in law to the petitioner" 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner earlier filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 2086/2021 which was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law to challenge the adjudication. It is also contended that provisions of Section 46 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act') were not complied with and notice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the authorities on 31.08.2019 and the proceedings initiated after search and seizure under Section 67 and 70 of the Act cannot bypass the provisions contained under Sections 46 and 62 of the Act. It is further contended that principles of natural justice have not been followed by the Adjudicating Officer, hence, the present writ petition is maintainable. 4. Mr. Sandeep Pathak appearing for respondents has vehementally opposed the writ petition. It is contended that assessment order can be challenged by way of appeal. It is also contended that this is not a case under Section 46 of the Act for the very reasons that petitioner had submitted NIL return in the year 2017-2018 and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so deposited Rupees Thirty Six Lacs. He has also admitted his tax liability for the year 2017-2018. The proper alternate remedy is available and petitioner is entitled to place all the objections before the appellate authority. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon Tanushree Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors:, 2022(12) TR 6736, wherein the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the case akin to the present one. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. The primary contention of counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of Section 46 of the Act was not complied with and notice was not given to the petitioner who was a registered person. Since there is non-obstante clause under Section 62 of the Act, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
