2021 (10) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The captioned main writ petition is directed against an order dated 09.01.2019 bearing Reference No.01/CTO-KKL/2018-19/38, Karaikal made by the fourth respondent (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 3. The impugned order pertains to assessment years 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and it is said to arise under 'Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' (hereinafter 'GST Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity). 4. The sheet anchor contention of learned counsel for writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner, who is a registered Works Contractor under GST Act and who is an assessee in the books of Karaikal Division, had raised an invoice prior to GST Act kicked in i.e, prior....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consent of the learned counsel for both sides, i.e, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, took up the captioned main writ petition. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) submitted that there would have been no difficulty if the Writ Petitioner had directly responded to the SCN, instead of writing to the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and marking a copy to the fourth respondent. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner has responded qua SCN, as a copy of the letter dated 14.12.2018 written to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has been marked to the fourth respondent. To this extent, the impugned order, proceeding on t....