9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XES, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU [ 2024 (10) TMI 116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in TITAN COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. P. MANIVANNAN VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2024 (1) TMI 619 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , where again the question considered was in relation to the proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. The court in M/s. Banglore Golf Club held ' Based on the established legal principles and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2019 to 2023-24.' Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Titan Company Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise and Another [WP No.33164 of 2023] and on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Banglore Golf Club Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [WP No.16500 of 2024] in support of this contention. The learned counsel also submits that the show cause notice reliance extensively on third party information and runs to 1622 pages including the documents relied upon. It is submitted that the petitioner has only be given a short time, i.e. till 21.10.2024, to reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that the denial of proper opportunity to reply to the show cause notice amounts to violation of principles of natura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Titan Company Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of GST. The Madras High Court, while addressing a similar issue, relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs. Caltex (India) Ltd. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment order can be distinctly separated and must be treated independently. 4. This Court has reviewed the judgment of the Madras High Court and the scope of inquiry under Section 73 of the CGST Act. Based on the established legal principles and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en issued if different issues are involved for any of the years in question, such issues will be specifically considered and orders will be uploaded separately for each of the years following adjudication. The decisions of the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case for reasons already indicated. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader is also right in contenting that the provisions of Sub Section (3) of Section 74 do not indicate that the notice to be issued under Sub Section (1) of Section 74 must be for one particular year and on the contrary refers to a period . Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
