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>Petitioner must comply with Section 73 to present documents for fair resolution. Amendment allowed.</h1> <h3>M/s Astha Ferrotech Private Limited, Jamshedpur. Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Karthik Alloys Limited, Goa.</h3> M/s Astha Ferrotech Private Limited, Jamshedpur. Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of ... Issues:1. Blocking of electronic credit ledger due to non-filing of GSTR-3B by vendor.2. Issuance of demand notices under Rule 86A(1)(a)(i) and Rule 86A(1)(b).3. Allegation of notices issued without proper application of mind.4. Dispute regarding transaction timeline and applicability of Rule 86A.5. Initiation of proceedings under Section 73 of the JGST Act.6. Court's direction on the petitioner's appearance and submission of relevant documents.Analysis:1. The petitioner approached the court regarding the blocking of its electronic credit ledger due to the non-filing of GSTR-3B by the vendor. Two demand notices were issued under Rule 86A(1)(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, asking the petitioner to reverse the ITC amount with interest by a specified date.2. The petitioner challenged the demand notices, alleging that they were issued without proper application of mind. The first notice was based on the vendor being labeled a 'non-existent dealer,' while the revised notice was issued because the vendor was a GSTR-3B return defaulter. The petitioner argued that the transactions with the vendor were completed before the amendment introducing Rule 86A came into effect.3. The petitioner contended that despite providing evidence of invoices and payments, the notices targeted the petitioner for ITC reversal instead of the vendor. However, proceedings under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act against the petitioner were already initiated and pending before the respondent.4. The court acknowledged arguments on the merits but directed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the JGST Act before the respondent. The court emphasized the importance of producing all relevant documents and records for proper adjudication, advising against pursuing the matter in the writ proceedings.5. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek an amendment. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent and present necessary documents by a specified date, with the respondent aiming to conclude the proceedings within a designated timeframe for a fair resolution of the matter.
TaxTMI 