9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant documents including bank statements and invoices were also attached. It is also material to note that the impugned order does not specifically state that the suppliers to whom the petitioner availed supplies, had not paid the tax in respect of which ITC was claimed by the petitioner. It merely states that suppliers are cancelled due to GSTR-3B/suspicious transaction /non-existing/ Others . Although, the petitioner has efficacious remedy of an appeal against the impugned order. However, it is not considered apposite to relegate the petitioner to avail of the said remedy. This is also for the reason that the impugned order cannot be considered as a reasoned order. The matter remanded to the Proper Officer, to consider afresh - petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act) / Delhi Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter DGST Act) and the Show Cause Notice dated 11.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN) pursuant to which the impugned order was passed. 7. The petitioner was registered under the CGST Act with effect from 30.11.2017. However, its registration was subsequently suspended from 18.11.2022. 8. The petitioner was issued the impugned SCN calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an aggregate demand of ₹33,05,034/- should not be raised in respect of SGST and CGST. It was alleged that the petitioner had not correctly declared his tax liability in its annual returns (filed in Form GSTR-09). The annexure to the impugned SCN made a referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the GST registration of a supplier. The petitioner also referred to various decisions in support of this contention. 11. The impugned order indicates that the petitioner had availed supplies to those suppliers whose registration had been cancelled. The concerned officer found that two of the said suppliers had deposited the tax and therefore, the demand in respect of the supplies made by these two suppliers were dropped. However, demand in respect of the supplies made by four other suppliers were confirmed on the ground that their registration was cancelled due to various reasons. The relevant portion of the annexure to the impugned order, which sets out the complete reasoning for confirming the demand to the extent of ₹6,76,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not paid the tax in respect of which ITC was claimed by the petitioner. It merely states that suppliers are cancelled due to GSTR-3B/suspicious transaction /non-existing/ Others . 14. Although, the petitioner has efficacious remedy of an appeal against the impugned order. However, we do not consider it apposite to relegate the petitioner to avail of the said remedy. This is also for the reason that the impugned order cannot be considered as a reasoned order. Neither the contentions advanced by the petitioner have been dealt with, nor the authorities relied upon by the petitioner have been considered. 15. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Proper Officer, to consider afresh. The Proper Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
