AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'CGST Act, 2017'). 3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter, 'the impugned notification'). 4. The present petition is a part of a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notification has been challenged. The W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. is the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On the last date of hearing i.e., 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case: "1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively. 2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. 66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too. 67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025." 5. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., the challenge made by the Petitioner to the impugned notification in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court. 6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that a show cause notice dated 31st May, 2024 (hereinafter, 'th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces, e-way bills, and payment proof only and stating that the suppliers had filed their GST 3B. However, as regards the actual receipt of good/services the noticee failed to produce any supporting documents. Further, regarding fulfilling of essential ingredient as mentioned in section 16 (2) (c) of the Act, 2017 the noticee failed to prove that the tax collected by his supplier from him was actually paid to the government. Since, the taxpayer failed to produce any supporting documents to prove the admissible purchase and receipt of goods/services from the above stated cancel taxpayers. 10. In view of the above position, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed without affording the Petitioner with sufficient o....