9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1 is not a small business entity but a private limited company, having corporate entity. Thus, the petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the pre show-cause as well as the show-cause notice by contending that its consultant was unwell or remained unreachable. The petitioners having not responded to the pre-show-cause notice as well as the show-cause notice, there being no proper explanation for having not responded to the same and further taking note of the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal under section 107 of the said Act, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to this Court for adjudication of its case on merits on the basis of its stand taken for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that if an issue had already been previously adjudicated, there is no scope to reopen the same though for a subsequent period unless, there is change in circumstances. According to Mr. Kanodia, the issue that fell for consideration in respect of discrepancies mentioned in Serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the order dated 26th December, 2023 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 are the same in respect of the determination made by the proper officer vide order dated 8th April, 2024 in respect of the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019. He submits that in the facts noted hereinabove, this Court may be pleased to set aside the order or in the alternative remand the matter back to the proper officer for adjudication afresh having regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference is called for. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In this case I notice that the petitioners are aggrieved by a determination made by the proper officer under the said act on 8th April, 2024. Records reveal that much prior to issuance of such order, on 8th October, 2023, the petitioners had been issued a notice in DRC-01A. The petitioners did not respond to such notice. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued in Form GST DRC-01 on 5th December, 2023. The petitioners also had not responded to the same. I find that it is the petitioners case that the consultant who had been engaged by the petitioners and looking after the GST matter in the place of bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice, there being no proper explanation for having not responded to the same and further taking note of the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal under section 107 of the said Act, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to this Court for adjudication of its case on merits on the basis of its stand taken for the first time before this Court. 7. This writ petition thus, cannot succeed and is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioners applying before the appellate authority if so advised. 8. I find that the order impugned had been passed on 8th April, 2024, the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
