9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 at Annexure A, the State GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings as against the petitioner proposing to demand IGST and consequently, in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which contemplates a complete bar / embargo on the Central GST Authorities to initiate proceedings in a situation where the State GST Authorities had already initiate proceedings as against the petitioner on the same subject matter, the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure A to extent of demand of IGST of Rs.1,68,04,057/- along with interest in the light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 deserves to be quashed. Denial of input tax credit on the alleged violation of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r along with interest and penalty; b) Hold that the Petitioner has rightly availed input tax credit of Rs.1,30,28,404/- in respect of the IGST paid on manpower supply services received by the petitioner during the period April 2019 to November 2022. c) Hold that the Respondent No.3 has arbitrarily issued the impugned Show Cause Notice No.18/2023-24 ADC dated 28.09.2023 enclosed at Annexure A by erroneously invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 / KGST Act, 2017; d) Pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 2. The petitioner is involved in the business of providing goods, transport agency services for completely built units and knocked down parts of motor vehicles in different ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 which culminated in an adjudication Order-In-Original dated 07.08.2023 which was thereafter set aside by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 05.03.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the State GST Authorities had initiated the proceedings first, the impugned Show Cause Notice issued by the Central GST Authorities to the extent of demand of IGST in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 deserves to be quashed. 8. With regard to the second demand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the admissibility of input tax credit is covered by the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi as well as the judgments of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t tax credit on the alleged violation of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Bosch Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others - 2024 VIL-828-KAR, and Musashi Autoparts Private India Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.478/2024 dated 29.07.2024 and the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi. In my view, the input tax credit has been validly availed in terms of the decisions and Circular referred to supra. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions. 14. In the result, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
