TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses premature writ petition on alleged tax issues, stresses statutory process.</h1> <h3>M/s Johar Atala Centre Versus The Assistant Commissioner State Tax and another</h3> M/s Johar Atala Centre Versus The Assistant Commissioner State Tax and another - TMI Issues:1. Allegation of bogus tax purchases and input tax availed.2. Show-cause notice issuance and reply filed.3. Prayers for directions and reliefs sought.4. Statute governing tax evasion and appropriate action.5. Premature writ petition due to no final order passed.6. Complete code in The Central Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, a GST registered entity, faced allegations of bogus tax purchases and improper input tax availed, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice on 05.10.2019. Despite filing a reply to the notice, authorities conducted a raid. The petitioner sought directions for the adjudication of the notice, a personal hearing, and the opportunity for further submissions. Additionally, the petitioner requested that any consequential raid without considering submissions be deemed legally unsustainable. The plea included a prayer for appropriate writs or orders as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court.The learned Government Advocate referenced The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with The Central Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017, highlighting the statutory provisions for addressing tax evasion. It was argued that as the petitioner had responded to the show-cause notice but no final order had been issued, the writ petition was premature. The advocate emphasized that the respondents were bound to follow the provisions of The Central Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017, suggesting that appropriate action would be taken in due course.Considering the statutory framework as a comprehensive code in itself, the Court declined admission to the case, noting that since no final order had been passed by the authorities, interference was unwarranted. The judgment underscored the importance of allowing the statutory process to unfold, indicating that the respondents were yet to make a final determination in the matter.
TaxTMI 