TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e noticed which is tabulated hereunder: S.No. Assessment year Order date Defects 1 2017-18 19.01.2021 i) Ineligible claim of ITC - Regarding inward supplies. ii) Ineligible claim of ITC on vehicles (One Lorry - TN 13 L 0766). iii) Interest under Section 50 of the Act. iv) Penalty under Section 73(9) of the Act. 2 2018-19 19.01.2021 i) Ineligible claim of ITC - Regarding inward supplies ii) Interest under Section 50 of the Act. iii) Penalty under Section 73(9) of the Act. 3 2019-20 20.01.2021 i) Ineligible claim of ITC - Regarding inward supplies. ii) Ineligible claim of ITC on vehicles spare parts. iii) Interest under Section 50 of the Act. iv) Penalty under Section 73(9) of the Act. 4 2020-21 21.01.2021 i) Stock Reconciliation ii) Ineligible claim of ITC on vehicle spare parts. iii) Penalty under Section 73(9) of the Act. 3. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the defects noticed during the course of inspection, the 1st Respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "TNGST Act or "the Act"), by issuing a show cause notice dated 31.10.2020 for the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2021 respectively were passed confirming the proposal thereby rejecting the claim of ITC in respect of all the 5 suppliers including A.R.Enterprises and M.I.Traders, on the premise that the transactions were not genuine while also confirming the proposal to deny ITC in respect of vehicles and its spare parts. 5. It is against the above orders of assessment for the year 2017-18 to 2020-2021 that the present writ petitions are filed. A challenge is also laid to Circular No.9 of 2019 dated 24.05.2019. 6. I shall proceed to deal with the challenge to the Circular No.9 dated 24.05.2019. The challenge is primarily on two grounds viz., i) That the 4th respondent has no authority to delegate the power of adjudication by way of a circular contrary to Section 167 of the Act which contemplates a notification being issued. ii) That the assessing authority was the inspecting authority and permitting the very same authority to adjudicate would fall foul of the maxim "No man can be a judge of his own cause." 7. I find that both the above grounds had arisen for consideration on earlier occasions and stands rejected. With regard to the 1st ground that the authorisation ought to have been m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said to have been attracted, nor was there any necessity to issue Notification as sought to be submitted by Mr.Rastogi./ There could not be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Canon India Pvt. Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr.Rastogi that when a statute directs that the things to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone. However, in the instant case, the Board has assigned the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to various Sections of CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder by issuing the Circular in question, the question of issuing Notification for delegation of powers by the Commissioner as contemplated under Section 167 of the CGST Act does not arise. Mr.Rastogi appears to have misread the powers of the Board to assign the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to the various Sections of the CGST Act, as the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the other authority or the officer as contemplated in Section 167 of the CGST Act. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Rastogi that the respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting officers may have to figure as witnesses and it would be inappropriate and unjust to entrust or empower such category of with powers of assessment. 26. We have carefully considered the submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon by either side. As noticed already, the decisions relied upon mainly cases where the courts came to make certain observations and chose to interfere on grounds of bias and lack of independent application of mind, on a challenge made in those cases with reference to individual exercise of power in particular in case. Hence, a general challenge to the notification on such grounds on mere assumptions and hypothetical considerations, could not be countenanced inasmuch as those decisions would be wholly inappropriate for the cases on hand before us. The plea based on bias is an issue of fact and depends upon proof that an officer has or is supposed to have bias or strong learning to one side rather than the other or that he is a party or the interested party in the controversy with a result that he could not be indifferent. No doubt, it is well accepted principle of law that justice should not only be done but the parties affected have a feeling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this account is always subject to correction before the statutory authorities as well as before this court and the safeguards available in law to an assessed who has been wronged in law, in our view, are not only reasonable, but effective to vindicate their rights and secure justice. Consequently, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the plea of possible bias or want of impartiality in cases of exercise of power under the impugned notifications. If in any given case, an individual officer who undertook the raid or inspection and gathered material has to figure in as a witness, the ineligibility of such an officer to exercise the power of assessment would be purely a matter personal to him in an individual case of exercise of power and on that account, the system or scheme underlying the conferment of powers on the intelligent/Enforcement wing officers, the power to assess escaped turnover under section 16 and 16-A of the Act cannot be said to be either unlawful or arbitrary or discriminatory and opposed to the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder." (emphasis supplied) 9. The above judgment dealing with bias of Enforcement Wing Officers under the erstwh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to the challenge to the assessment orders, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition inasmuch the question whether the transactions are genuine or not and entitlement of the petitioner to ITC with regard to motor vehicles and its spare parts involves disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, in the present case a question arises as to whether the document was furnished and if so, whether the same was adequate. 12. It is trite law that adjudication of disputed questions of fact falls outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419, wherein, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that though the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain the Writ Petition, if an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In para 7, the Court observed thus : "7. Against the order of the Commissioner an order for reference could have been....