9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order has been passed by an Officer different from the Officer, who investigated the case - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been negligent in not participating in the proceedings, which emanated from the notices issued by the second respondent in DRC 01 for the respective Assessment Years. There is no excuse for the petitioner to have ignored the notices and now, present a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17818 of 2024 as a fait accompli stating that the Circulars are void and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Since the petitioner has not filed reply, one opportunity is being given to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent Department from its Electronic Cash Register wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der DRC 01 on various dates by the second respondent and adjudication by the first respondent is void, inasmuch as it is contrary to the scheme of the respective GST Enactments. 5 . It is submitted that the impugned Circulars are also liable to be quashed as they are contrary to the scheme of the GST Enactments. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had failed to respond to the notices issued in DRC 01 for the respective Assessment Years and has thus, suffered the impugned orders. 6 . The learned Special Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the issue is covered against the petitioner in terms of the decision of this Court in M/s.Rasathe Garments, Rep. by its Partner, Virudhunagar vs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MD)No.17818 of 2024 has to fail, as there is no embargo on the second respondent to inspect and record statements. Circular No.13/2022-TNGST, dated 08.11.2022 as modified on 27.05.2023 by Circular No.11/2023 dated 27.05.2023 itself has addressed the issue, the content of which has been extracted in Paragraph No.10 of the order in M/s.Rasathe Garments, Rep. by its Partner, Virudhunagar vs. The State Tax Officer (ST) (Inspn.), Tirunelveli [W.P.(MD)Nos.25548 and 26389 of 2023, decided on 03.06.2024]. 10 . Since the petitioner has not filed reply, one opportunity is being given to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent Department from its Electronic Cash Register within a peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
