9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, has held ' Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.' By following the principles laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, the writ appeal is declined to be entertained and the petitioner is relegated to approach the authorities by replying to the demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 23.09.2021. It is open for the petitioner to raise all contentions raised here before the authorities and authorities shall consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner could not have rushed to this Court questioning impugned demand-cum-show-cause notice without availing an opportunity to submit his written explanation. Aggrieved by rejection of writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manamohan P.N. for Sri. Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. G.S. Hulmani, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Sri. M.B. Kanavi, learned CGSC for respondent No.2, Sri. M.M. Khannur, learned AGA for respondent No. 3 and perused writ appeal papers. 5. Learned counsel Sri. Manamohan P.N. for the appellant/petitioner would submit that impugned demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 23.09.2021 is one without jurisdiction, since there is no notification authorizing levy of GST to ENA supplied for human consumption. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner supplied entire ENA to Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, which is a manufacturer of alcohol for human consumption. He further submits that since ENA supplied to Karnataka State Beverages Corporation is for the purpose of human consumption, respondent No. 1 could not have raised demand-cum-show-cause notice calling upon the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court without even submitting his reply to Demand-cum-Show-cause notice dated 23.09.2021, which is under challenge. Further, learned counsel would submit that demand-cum-show-cause notice is rightly issued to the petitioner, since the petitioner has not furnished particulars of ENA supply. Moreover, he submits that ENA i.e., supply for manufacture of alcohol liquor is not consumed directly and it indicates process of manufacture, hence, GST would be attracted. Referring to Annexure-R1, notification dated 28.06.2017, learned counsel Sri. G.S. Hulmani submits that Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured of any strength would attract GST. Further, he submits that since the petitioner s challenge is to show-cause, petitioner may be directed to submit his reply, which would be considered by the authorities and appropriate orders would be passed. He further submits that all contentions raised by the petitioner could be raised before the authorities, which would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thus, he prays for dismissal of writ appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of writ appeal papers, the only point th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted. 11. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, facts of the present case are to be examined. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put in all his efforts to make out a case that the demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 23.09.2021 issued demanding GST for ENA supplied by the petitioner is non-est and without jurisdiction. But, at this stage, we refrain from going into the questions raised by the petitioner including question of jurisdiction. It is not the case of petitioner that authorities which issued demand-show-cause notice lacks inherent jurisdiction, but it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 9 of the GST Act, notification prescribing rate of GST as recommended by the Council is not notified and that petitioner supplied ENA for manufacture of alcohol for human consumption. Moreover, question of jurisdiction also could be raised before the Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
