9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on 04.12.2023 under Annexure-5. As it revealed from the order dated 04.12.2023, the Adjudicating Authority before passing the order has given thrice opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding. As it appears from the record that the petitioner has intimated the period for which the Adjudicating Authority decided the matter and, as such, the same is the subject matter in the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the authority on the basis of the intelligence report under Annexure-1. Merely because the petitioner made request letter to the authority to consider the same, that cannot be said that the petitioner had appeared and taken steps in the matter. Had the petitioner participated in the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 on the ground that without taking into consideration the overlapping period, the demand has been raised. 4. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as the demand raised by the authority under Annexure-1 dated 09.11.2023 is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis of the intelligence report for the period from 2017-18 and 2018-19. But the order dated 04.12.2023 has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority without taking into consideration the period of assessment already done by the authority under Annexure-1 relying upon the intelligence report. 5. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST, Central Tax and Customs appearing for the opposite parties contended that the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipate in the proceeding. As it appears from the record that the petitioner has intimated the period for which the Adjudicating Authority decided the matter and, as such, the same is the subject matter in the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the authority on the basis of the intelligence report under Annexure-1. It is contended that the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order impugned. But fact remains, the petitioner has never appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in spite of notice being issued thrice to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner made request letter to the authority to consider the same, that cannot be said that the petitioner had appeared and taken steps in the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
