TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d this Court with multiple reliefs:- (1) a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions, directing upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what circumstances, order has been passed by the Respondent Department in Form GST DRC-07 (Annexure-12), levying tax, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,09,10,755.38/-, on the purported allegation of the petitioner having claimed excess ITC, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. And without looking into the records/online entries from the portal on the petitioner. b. Consequent upon showing cause if nay, and on being satisfied that the department could not have passed the summary order dated 18.09.2019 u/r.142, summari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llation/erection/commission and as on that date 19^th July, 2019 no revenue had been generated. However, petitioner received a summary of show cause notice under GST DRC-01/GST DRC-02 alleging availment of excess Input Tax Credit for the period July, 2017 to September, 2018 proposing to impose tax, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 1.09 crores. Petitioner's return were also subjected to scrutiny and GST ASMT-10 was issued in terms of Rule 99 (1) for the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 which overlaps to the period of DRC-01/ DRC-02 alleging mismatch of GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Subsequently petitioner was surprised to receive a summary of the order under GST DRC-07 issued under Rule 142(5) for the period July, 2017 to September 2018. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under taken scrutiny of the return submitted by the petitioner under Section 61 of the JGST Act and issued ASMT-10 showing mismatch or discrepancy in his returns, petitioner was entitled to avail of the statutory period to remove such discrepancy or seek a rectification thereof under Section 161 of the JGST Act. The respondents have kept the application for rectification pending and instead blocked the ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner for more than one year. Therefore, summary of the order contained in GST DRC-07 (Annexure-12) be quashed and the respondents may be directed to unblock ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. At the same time the respondents may also be directed to undertake th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period for passing an order on a rectification application i.e., six months has already expired, as such respondent cannot take a decision on such application against the scheme of the Act. 6. However, on this score on consideration of the submission of the respondents' counsel, it appears that the application for rectification was made by the petitioner on 28th September, 2019 and the six months period stipulated under Section 161 would have expired by 27th March, 2020 before which the lockdown had started across the country. Moreover, the Apex Court vide order dated 23.3.2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3/2020 had been pleased to order that period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on remaining as on 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisions (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondents should take a decision on the application for rectification dated 28th September, 2019 pending before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and also taking note of the orders passed by the Apex Court in this regard in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3/2020. However, this Court is not convinced that the challenge to the order passed under Section 73 under GST can be entertained in writ jurisdiction since the time limit prescribed for an aggrieved assessee to prefer statutory remedy has expired before filing of the writ petition [See Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440].....