TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 of the second respondent imposing interest and penalty for delayed payment of GST during the period between July 2017 to March 2020. 2. The petitioner is having agricultural based company, wherein the petitioner purchase and sell agricultural based products and functioning from November 2011 onwards. The company was registered under the Commercial Tax Department, dated 02.11.2011. Earlier, there was a blanket exemption on all agricultural products till June 2017. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued a Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, grant exemption of intra-state supplies of the specified goods from the whole of the central tax leviable thereon. Pursuant to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efused to grant further time for the petitioner's written submission. The third respondent, subsequently, passed an order dated 27.12.2022 levying interest. Since there was no sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's company was selected for statutory audit and the impugned demands were on the basis of the objections raised by the department audit party. The said objection was communicated to the petitioner and a copy of the objection was also furnished. The petitioner has mentioned that their product is falling under Entry 88 of the Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. But actually, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition. If the petitioner is aggrieved then the petitioner is having alternative remedy to prefer appeal and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. After hearing the rival submissions this Court has given its anxious consideration. The claim of the petitioner is that the "Gloriosa Superba Seed" comes under entry 88 in the Notification No.2 dated 28.06.2017 and exemption is granted for the said seed. But the claim of the respondents is that the said "Gloriosa Superba Seed" comes under entry 73 in the Notification No.1 dated 28.06.2017 and the same is levied tax of 5%. Even though the respondents have filed a counter affidavit elaborately stating about the Notification No.1 and 2, the impugned order there is no mention about the said Notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not granted sufficient opportunity and relied on the impugned order wherein it is stated that personal hearing opportunities was granted on 06.09.2022, 08.09.2022 and 09.09.2022 vide letter dated 29.08.2022, 06.12.2022 vide letter dated 29.12.2022 and 12.12.2022 vide letter dated 29.11.2022. It is impossible to attend the hearing on 06.12.2022 when the notice dated 29.12.2022 was issued. However the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents strongly opposed this plea and produced the hearing sheet to substantiate that opportunity was granted and the petitioner attended the hearing on 06.09.2022. Even according to the petitioner he had attended the PH on 06.09.2022 and sought time to file written submission. After considering the above....