2024 (8) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Having heard Mr. Walve and considering the averments in petition with the documents annexed thereto, in our view, the orders impugned in the petition cannot be sustained. The show cause notice and the impugned orders speak for itself. 3. Petitioner has impugned the show cause notice dated 12th May 2022 and order dated 17th May 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3, Superintendent, LTU, Range-IV, Mumbai-North West GST and an order dated 22nd May 2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, who is the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Appeals-I, Mumbai on various grounds. 4. Petitioner is registered under the relevant laws of GST and from 1st July 2018 till 31st March 2022 has been regularly filing its GST returns. Petitioner received a sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 3, Petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2 which appeal, by order dated 22nd May 2023 came to be dismissed. In the said order passed by Respondent No. 2, references have been made to certain other communications which were not even referred to in the show cause notice. Respondent No. 2 in his impugned order has dismissed the appeal once again relying on the same file which is referred to in the show cause notice. There is nothing to indicate even in this order of Respondent No. 2 that Petitioner was provided the said file. Paragraph 14 and 15 of the order passed by Respondent No. 2 reads as under:- "14. 1 find that the grievance of the appellant in the subject appeal is regarding the cancellation of their GST re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kothari) has availed fake ITC to the tune of Rs.9.57 Cr from the fake firm, details of the same are extracted in Para 14 above." 9. Therefore, it is quite clear that Petitioner was not even given a copy of the said file to effectively reply to the show cause notice or even make proper representations before Respondent No. 2. It is quite obvious that Petitioner was severely handicapped and despite that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 proceeded to pass the impugned orders. 10. In these circumstances, in our view, no purpose will be served for granting time to Respondents to file any Affidavit-in-reply and in any case, Respondents had enough time to file reply. 11. Therefore, we dispose the petition as under:- (i) The order dated 17t....