9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted. Although, the impugned SCN directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer on the appointed date and time, but no such time or date was indicated in the impugned SCN. It is also material to note that the impugned SCN did not specify any particulars as to the allegations that the petitioner had collected the tax and had failed to deposit the same in the account of the Central / State Government beyond the period of three months. The impugned SCN did not mention any particulars as to the amount of tax collected or the transaction in respect of which the allegation is made. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner s GST registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. First, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the Central/ State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due. 3. The petitioner was called upon to furnish its reply to the impugned SCN within a period of seven working days form the date of the service of the impugned SCN and to appear before the proper office on the appointed date and time. The petitioner s GST registration was also suspended with effect from the date of the impugned SCN, that is, with effect from 26.08.2021. 4. It is material to note that the impugned SCN did not mention any proposal to cancel the petitioner s GST registration with retrospective effect from the date when it was granted. Although, the impugned SCN directed the petitioner to appear before the concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 2017 to March, 2018, and the order dated 30.04.2024 in respect of the tax period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act/ DGST Act). It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said orders have been passed on account of denial of the Input Tax Credit (hereafter the ITC) on supplies availed by the petitioner form its sister concern (Saluja Electronics). The said denial of the ITC is based on retrospective cancellation of the GST registration of Saluja Electronics. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the order cancelling the GST registration has been set aside by a separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent that the petitioner has on efficacious remedy of the statutory appeal against the orders dated 26.12.2023 and 30.04.2024. The learned counsel also fairly states that in case the petitioner prefers appeals against the said orders, the same may be directed to be considered on merits by the appellate authority notwithstanding that the appeals may be beyond the period of limitation. 15. In view of above, we direct that in case the petitioner file appeals against the orders dated 26.12.2023 and 30.04.2024 within the period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered by the appellate authority uninfluenced by the question of delay. 16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application also stands dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
