9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of all the five assessee's, hence in order to participate along with four other assessee's, the petition is liable to be restored in view of change circumstance.
In view of the above, the order 17.12.2024 is hereby recalled and the writ petition no.8015/2024 is restored to its original number.
The review petition is disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k commencing 20.01.2025. These petitions got listed on 23.01.2025 but in the meanwhile Respondent No. 2 malafidely passed common final order dated 21.01.2025 in violation of principles of natural justice upon which the petitioners filed application for amendment in each petition for challenging common final order dated 21.01.2025 and the said amendment applications were allowed vide order dated 23.01.2025 and the cases were ordered to be listed today i.e. on 10.02.2025 but still no reply has been filed by the Respondents despite the fact that amendment had already been carried out by the petitioner. Hence, counsel for the petitioner expressing urgency in the matter, pressed for interim relief and submitted detailed synopsis to substantiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice under Section 74 can only be issued when evasion of tax is alleged whereas in the case at hand there is no allegation in the entire show cause notice regarding evasion of tax but the allegation pertain to "circular trading " wherein admittedly at each step of such trading the petitioners have paid GST. To substantiate this ground, reliance has been placed on judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in CC, CE & ST Bangalore (Adj.) etc. Vs. Northern Operating Systems Private Limited (NOS) in Civil Appeal No. 2289-2293 on the basis of which CBIC has issued Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dated 13.12.2023 observing that "Therefore, only in the cases where the investigation indicates that there is material evidence of fraud or wilful misstate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. To substantiate this ground, reliance has been placed on State of Punjab Vs, Debender Pal Singh 2011 (14) S.C.C 770, Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191 and State of Orissa & Others Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 456. 8. Another ground for challenge of common final order dated 21.01.2025 which has been raised is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
