9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Impugned Order No. 1, dated 10.07.2023 bearing No. ACCT/LGSTO-200/TDS/ADJ-13/2023-24 issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 73 (9) read with Section 6 and Section 50 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Annexure A). (ii) Impugned Notice No. 1 i.e., the Consequential Demand Notice dated 10.07.2023, in FORM GST DRC-07 issued by the Respondent No. 1, under Rule 100(1), 100(2), 100(3) and 142 (5) of the CGST/KGST Rules, bearing Reference No.ZD2907230075601, (Annexure B). b) A writ of Certiorari or any other form of writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, quashing the following orders and calling for the records relating to the: (i) The impugned Notice No.2, dated 14.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reply to the said show-cause notice also, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 under Section 73 (9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs. 3,98,295/- including the tax, interest and penalty. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 14.08.2024 under Section 79 (1) (e) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 directing attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts for recovery of the alleged tax dues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the pre-intimation notice under Rule 142 (1A) nor the show-cause notice under 27.04.2023 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 were communicated or served upon the petitioner and he was not aware of the said proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aware of impugned proceedings and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, it is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Insofar as the appeal filed by the petitioner being rejected by the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
