TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v.(in all the cases) For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Rituraj, A.C. to Sr. S.C.I Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since in all these writ applications common issue is involved; as such all are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners in all these writ applications have challenged the respective summary notices in terms of GST DRC-01 read with Rule 142 of the JGST Rules,and summary orders in Form DRC-07 respective adjudication orders and all consequential orders and also the entire adjudication proceedings and further for a direction upon the respondents to unblocked/re-credit the amount of Input Tax Credit illegally blocked / debit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mary Show Cause Notice in terms of GST DRC-01 read with Rule 142 (1) was purportedly issued, informing about initiation of proceedings for utilization of excess ITC (the said notice was neither electronically uploaded nor physically made over to the petitioner). On 04.05.2018, without any knowledge or information to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.16,36,000/- was blocked from the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. On 04.05.2018 Summary Order under GST DRC-07, exercising power under Rule 142 (5) was issued without making available the copy of the order to the petitioner till date. On 16.03.2020 having realized that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner was blocked, the petitioner raised an objection concerning less ITC clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners in reply of the respective counter affidavits wherein it is indicated that no adjudication in terms of Sections 73 & 74 has ever been carried out, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Even the notice under DRC-01 was also not issued as would be evident from Annexure-10. The information about the blocking/debiting of Electronic Credit Ledger was also not informed to the respective petitioners. Thereafter, a reply has been filed by the respondents to the rejoinder of the petitioners indicating therein that the show cause notice under Rule 142 (1) was issued to the petitioners by email and the petitioners appeared and produced the purchase invoices. The petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment dated 7th July 2022 on failure to give at least three opportunities including personal hearing before passing the adjudication order which adversely effects the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that in all these cases the issue involved is common, so far as the transition of existing ITC under VAT to GST regime is concerned. The petitioners had, in all these writ petitions, rightly availed the transitional credit of ITC through TRAN-1 but the Department had initiated the proceedings on the charge that they have wrongfully availed part of it. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vrs. FILCO Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions that in none of the case personal hearing has been granted to the petitioners. In the case of Unity Infraprojects Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand Ors.(W.P.T No.985/2022) this Court has categorically held that "It is evident that in terms of Section 75(4) & (5) in case an adverse order is to be passed against the assessee, the assessee is to be granted three opportunities to furnish reply, if the time is sought for. In the absence of proper show cause notice for furnishing reply petitioner was prevented from taking his defence and submitting a proper reply to the show cause notice. The adjudication order has been passed straightaway without following due procedure prescribed under Section 73 read with section 75(4) & (5) of the JGST Act. Th....