9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T registration was cancelled retrospectively - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was issued a reminder notice dated 04.12.2023 issued by respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another reply dated 15.12.2023, which was on similar lines as earlier reply dated 21.10.2023. The impugned order is ex facie unreasoned and has not considered any of the submissions made by the petitioner. The adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Petitioners Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Mr Sanjay Sharma and Ms Srishti Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr Udit Malik, ASC (Civil) for GNCTD/R-1 2 with Mr Vishal Chanda, Advocate. ORDER PER CM No. 46974/2024 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnover in GSTR-9. Second, that the petitioner had availed ITC in respect of supplies from the suppliers, whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. 8. The petitioner filed a response to the impugned SCN on 21.10.2023. He submitted that it had claimed ITC as was reflecting in Form GSTR-2A, but the same was not fully reflected in Table-8A of GSTR-9. The petitioner contends that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the petitioner. The adjudicating authority has rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner with the observations that it is found to be vague and miserably fails to counter the demands mentioned in DRC-01 . Additionally, the proper officer noted that no invoices, certificates, or proof of payment had been attached in support of his claim for excess ITC. The petitioner s contention that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
