9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or composition scheme u/s 10(2)(a) - notice for hearing the petitioner for determining the tax liability under Section 61 (3) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017 not issued - HELD THAT:- There has been violation of the statutory scheme in the present case by the second respondent. He ought to have first determined the eligibility of the petitioner for the compounding scheme and the order should have been passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nikhil John For the Respondents : Smt. Jasmin M.M.-GP. JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is filed impugning Ext. P9 order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam North, 2nd respondent in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the registered dealer under the provisions of CGST/KSGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner had opted for composition sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been issued. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without determining the eligibility of the petitioner for compounding show cause notice for determining liability under Section 73 has been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that at the first instance, the petitioner s application for compounding should have been considered, and after passing an order rejecting the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding scheme and the order should have been passed for proceeding further in determining Tax liability under Section 73 of the Act. 8. Without there being an order rejecting the application of the petitioner, notice under Section 73 has been issued. This is a complete violation of the Scheme of the Act and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
