9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for de novo adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as fresh order is required to be passed in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.RAY Appearance : For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Mr Anand Nainawati (5970). For the Respondent(s) No. 1 : Ms Shrunjal Shah, AGP. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainavati for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case may require. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of packaging materials falling under Chapter Heading 3923 at their factory located at Kalol, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. 5. In pre-GST regime, the petitioner was registered with the Central Excise department and were regularly filing all statutory returns as required under the Central Excise laws and availing CENVAT credit facility on inputs, input services and capital goods received by them. With the introduction of the Goods Services Tax ( GST ) regime w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the petitioner was migrated to the GST regime with GSTIN No.24AAMCS5827N1ZQ. 6. After introduction of GST, all the indirect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eon was not reflected in GSTR 2A and that mere mismatch between ITC claimed under FORM GSTR-2A and FORM GSTR-3B would not imply excess claim of ITC liable for reversal. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of reply vide letter dated 16.11.2018, there was no subsequent communication from the department and the petitioner was under bona fide belief that there explanation has been accepted by the department and therefore no show cause notice has been issued to them. 13. The petitioner, once again, on 07.01.2022, wrote a letter to the respondent No. 3 stating that in the year 2017-2018, there is a difference in GSTR 2A and GSTR 38 because two of the entities i.e. ONGC Petro Addition Limited and Reliance Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present petition. 18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah has placed on record letter dated 09.07.2024 issued by respondent no.3 addressed to her wherein it is stated that the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 is passed without issuing notice in Form DRC-01 in a summary form. It was therefore submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shah that appropriate order be passed for passing a fresh order after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 142 of the GST Rules. 19. Considering the above submissions, impugned summary order dated 11.01.2019 is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is passed without there being any notice issued in Form DRC-01 as provided under the GST Rules. 20. Admittedly in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
