TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bearing reference No. ZD190824018001Q dated August 08, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned SCN"). The notice was issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act") and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "WBGST Act") for the financial year 2023-2024 by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Shibpur Charge, Howrah Commissionerate herein respondent no.1. 2. The Impugned SCN demands payment of Rs. 36,04,552/-, comprising Rs. 18,02,276/- as CGST and an equivalent amount as WBGST, along with applicable interest and penalties. The notice alleges wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the Petitioners on inward supplies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Section 16 of the CGST/WBGST Act provides specific conditions for availing ITC, including possession of valid tax invoices, receipt of goods, and payment of taxes to the suppliers. The Petitioners contend that they have fulfilled all these conditions in good faith and availed ITC based on self-assessment of their books of accounts. 7. The Petitioners emphasize that they, as buyers, have no mechanism to verify whether the suppliers have deposited the collected taxes with the government. Once the payment, including tax, is made to the suppliers, the Petitioners' obligations are deemed fulfilled under the law. 8. The Petitioners argue that the retrospective cancellatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Such an approach renders the SCN unsustainable in law. 13. In light of the above, the Petitioners pray for the quashing of the Impugned SCN, as it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. They also request this Hon'ble Court to direct the Respondents to comply with the established legal framework for ITC disputes, including taking appropriate action against the defaulting suppliers. 14. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities is that it is a well-settled law that a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable against a Show Cause Notice unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these provisions is legally untenable. 17. It has been further submitted that by the respondent authority that even if it is considered that the reply to FORM GST-DRC-01A was not taken into account properly, the petitioner still cannot maintain this writ petition. All grounds can be raised before the proper officer during adjudication under Section 74 (9), where an adequate opportunity of hearing is provided. Therefore, the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel are inapplicable to the present case and should be disregarded. 18. After providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the draft audit report on 21st March 2017, the respondent issued the final report on 22nd December 2017. The report addressed the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rected to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order, it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner ....