2025 (3) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anding Counsel Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate ORDER ( Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ) Heard Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central GST and CX. 2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue an appropriate order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 20.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 by which he has confirmed the demand of service tax including Cess of Rs. 3,62,13,951/- for the period 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017) under Section 73(1) of the Fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rse of action against the petitioner until the disposal of this writ petition. (vii) To issue an appropriate order/direction in nature of certiorari for quashing a demand notice of Rs.4,12,27,144/- which was issued on 12.10.2021 by the Respondent No. 1. (viii) To any other relief for release for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case during its hearing." 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the writ application is fit to be allowed on a short ground. 4. It appears that pursuant to the demand-cum-show cause notice issued on 12.10.2021 by the respondent authority, the petitioner visited Patna Office on 12.11.2021, met with Mr. Santosh ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aragraph '2.0' wherein the Commissioner, CGST, Audit who has passed the impugned order made the following observation:- "2.0 Defense Reply: The Noticee have not submitted any defense reply against the charges alleged in the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2021." 7. Referring to the aforesaid paragraph '2.0' of the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner as contained in Annexures 'P/4' and 'P/5' have not at all been considered. This has resulted in jurisdictional error and the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities as it has been passed without consideration of the materials available on the record. 8. Dr. K.N. Singh, l....