2024 (4) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Mr. Subham Kumar & Mr Vipul Teotia, Advocates for R-5. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 29.12.2023 whereby an order has been passed against under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and a demand created against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner impugns the order dated 29.12.2023 to the limited extend that it confirms the demand in respect of denial of ITC to the petitioner with respect to the suppliers whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific request was made to the proper officer for a right of cross-examination of the witnesses whose statement was being relied upon as also the authors of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., no relief on accounts of availing ITC from cancelled dealers will be granted. NOH: 13/12/2023." 6. Perusal of the proceedings sheet dated 01.12.2023 shows that a specific request was made by the petitioner for cross-examination of the cancelled dealers whose ITC was proposed to be denied to the petitioner. The proper officer has noted that the proper officer intended to summon the cancelled dealers/suppliers of taxpayer for cross-examination, however, on account of paucity of time, the request was disallowed. 7. Denial of the right of cross-examination can cause grave and serious prejudice to an entity. In the instant case, the proper officer has himself noticed that the proper officer has intended to summon the said person, however....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the visiting team. Said issue has also not been dealt with in the impugned order. 11. Reference may also be had to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2023 in WP (C) 17171/2022 titled Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods & Service Tax Act, wherein an involuntary deposit was directed to be refunded. 12. Since the contention of the petitioner is that the deposit was not voluntary and was under coercion and a request for refund was made to the proper officer, the proper office should have considered the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, while reconsidering the issue with regard to denial of input tax credit for cancelled dealer, the proper officer shall also consider the request of the ....