9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing management consultancy services. He further submits that on 21.09.2020, the respondent no. 2 proceeded to pass the assessment order under Form DRC - 07 for non-compliance in filling Form GSTR - 3B under the due date. Thereafter, notice under section 46 of the GST Act was uploaded on the GST portal on 25.09.2020. On 03.12.2020, the petitioner filed return for the month of April, 2020 declaring Nil tax. Against the order dated 21.09.2020, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice under section 46 of the GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural justice and procedural requirement prescribed under the Statute in absence of proper service on the petitioner. 8. On an identical set of fact, the High Court of Jharkhand, in Vinman Constructions Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2022) 93 GST 119 (Jharkhand)], has held as under:- "12. The impugned assessment order passed under section 62 of the Act by the Respondent No. 2 suffers from a serious lacuna due to non-issuance of notice under section 62 of the Act. The action of the Respondent had led to blocking of ITC to the tune of Rs. 2.88 crores which has been adjusted against the disputed tax liability of Rs. 3,30,76,800/- imposed under the impugned assessment order. From perusal of the appellate order at Annexure-9, it appears th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. It is open for the Respondent to accept the return or undertake proper scrutiny thereof as per law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pre-deposit made before the Appellate Authority may be directed to be released. It is up to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority with proper request, which shall be considered in accordance with law." 9. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand in Vinman Constructions Limited (supra), the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. 10. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
