9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace under Section 74 of the Act. It is not required to accept the said arguments for the very reason that this is not a case where the registered person failed to furnish the return rather, the petitioner has filed the NIL return. Therefore, there was no requirement to give notice to the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. The present is a case where search and seizure had taken placed under Chapter XIV of the Act and in pursuance of search and seizure, summons were given under Section 70 of the Act to the petitioner to give evidence. Consequently, thereupon the evidence of petitioner was recorded and after recording of evidence, petitioner was afforded three opportunities of personal hearing and thereafter, the present assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as 'Act') were not complied with and notice to the petitioner was not given. Petitioner was registered with the GST authorities and as per Section 46 of the Act, it was mandatory to furnish a notice if a registered person fails to furnish return under Sections 39 or Section 44 or Section 45 of the Act. It is further contended that Section 62 of the Act deals with assessment of non-filers of returns and it has a non-obstante clause, wherein it is mentioned that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 73 or Section 74, where a registered person fails to furnish the return under Section 39 or Section 45, even after the service of a notice under Section 46, the proper officer may proceed to assess the tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted NIL return in the year 2017-2018 and therefore, there was no requirement of giving notice under Section 46 of the Act to the petitioner to furnish his return. It is contended that this is a case under Chapter XIV of the Act which deals with inspection, search, seizure and arrest. Petitioner was given notice under Section 70 of the Act after search and seizure. In pursuance of notice given under Section 70 of the Act, petitioner appeared before the Authorities and his statement was recorded. It is argued that petitioner now cannot argue before the Court that he has a right to cross-examine himself. It is contended that after recording of the statement of the petitioner under Chapter XIV of the Act, notices of personal hearing were g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-obstante clause under Section 62 of the Act, no proceedings could have taken place under Section 74 of the Act. We are not inclined to accept the said arguments for the very reason that this is not a case where the registered person failed to furnish the return rather, the petitioner has filed the NIL return. Therefore, there was no requirement to give notice to the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. The present is a case where search and seizure had taken placed under Chapter XIV of the Act and in pursuance of search and seizure, summons were given under Section 70 of the Act to the petitioner to give evidence. Consequently, thereupon the evidence of petitioner was recorded and after recording of evidence, petitioner was afforded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
