2022 (6) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Order-in-Original dated 16.10.2020 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 03.08.2021. 2. The narrow issue which arises for consideration in this matter is, whether respondent no. 2 had jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice. 3. Mr J.K. Mittal, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the record would show that even according to respondent no.2, the petitioner's taxable turnover in the relevant period amounted to Rs.15,28,468/-. 3.1. It is also Mr Mittal's submission that based on an incorrect advice rendered by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, Rs.18,69,400/- were deposited with the respondents, although, given the taxable turnover generated by the petitioner, he was not exigible to tax. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... action against petitioner. 4. Mr Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 2, says the petitioner has been carrying on business since June 2018. 4.1. According to Mr Singh, the petitioner has concealed the fact that he has been carrying on business since June 2018. In support of this submission, Mr Singh has relied upon the "voluntary statement" made by the petitioner before the concerned officer on 22.08.2019, under Section 70 of the CGST Act. 4.2. In particular, emphasis is laid by Mr Singh on the answers provided by the petitioner to question nos. 4 and 13 put to him by the concerned officer. For the sake of convenience, the questions and answers given qua question nos. 4 and 13 are extracted hereafter: "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....above, is found in Annexure-1 appended to the impugned show cause notice, 7.3. The submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had been, admittedly, carrying on business since June 2018, and, therefore, the respondents could do no better than to gather whatever information that was available, will not suffice in this case, in view of the answers provided to question nos. 7 to 12 by the petitioner in his voluntary statement made before the concerned officer on 22.08.2019. 7.4. For the sake of convenience, question nos.7 to 12 along with the responses of the petitioner are extracted hereafter: "Q-7 Today at your above- mentioned premises total number of 519550 pouches of Pan Masala (Rajshree Panmasala) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whether any investigation has been carried out vis-à-vis Mr Raju, Mr Singh says that this aspect has not been dealt with in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 8.1. What is interesting is that the counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents, after the petitioner had filed his additional-affidavit dated 20.09.2021. In the additional-affidavit, the petitioner squarely refers to the voluntary statement dated 22.08.2019. A perusal of the said affidavit shows that the voluntary statement was placed before this Court, pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by this Court. 8.2. As noticed above, the counter-affidavit dated 28.10.2021 was filed in and about 17.11.2021 i.e., after the additional-affidavit ....