9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Section 122 (1A) of the Act, which reads as under: "122. (1A) Any person who retains the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) and at whose instance such transaction is conducted, shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or input tax credit availed of or passed on." 3. It was then submitted that the jurisdictional fact to invoke Section 122(1A) of the Act is to find that the petitioner has retained the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or (ix) of sub-section (1) to Section 122 of the CGST Act, and it is at their instance that such transactions were conducted. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he merits or otherwise of the case. This Court would only agree that the writ petition ought not be entertained at the stage of show cause notice except in exceptional circumstances. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: i) Union of India v. Hindalco Industries, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 194: "12. There can be no doubt that in matters of taxation, it is inappropriate for the High Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of the show-cause notice or at the stage of assessment where alternative remedy by way of filing a reply or appeal. ..." ii) State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 451 : "6. ...I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court. ..." 6. It may be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 661 wherein while dealing with the challenge to the high court rejecting the writ petition filed against the show cause notice it was observed as under: "14. .....In the present case, the assessee has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the first instance without first exhausting the alternate remedies provided under the Act. In our considered opinion, at the said stage of proceedings, the High Court ought not have entertained the writ petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
