2025 (4) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sahil J. Rao for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5 and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "A. Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and hold that the section 16 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is ultravires to Article 14, 19 (1) (g) of The Constitution of India, 1950; ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.2019, the petitioner was granted a Registration Certificate in Form GST REG 06 after filing necessary form and documents. 3.2. Thereafter, on 09.01.2024, respondent no.1 issued an intimation in Form DRC-01A as per Rule 142 (1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Rules') read with Section 74 (5) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') intimating that the petitioner had purchased goods during the Financial Year 2022-23 from suo-moto cancelled dealer which is found to be bogus and hence, Input Tax Credit availed qua such dealer for Financial Year 2022-23 and the Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner was supposed to be reversed as per the provisions of Section 16 (2) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 11.12.2024 passed by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Rao for the petitioner submitted that the Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that this Court did not pass any order to condone the delay and the time spent by the petitioner before this Court to be considered as bona-fide by the Appellate Authority. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5 submitted that the respondent-Authority has rejected the Appeal in absence of any direction issued by this Court. 6. In view of the above submissions, we hereby direct the respondent-Appellate Authority to....