2025 (8) TMI 925

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned order a demand to the tune of Rs. 2,18,24,370/- has been raised against the Petitioner. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner, two submissions have been made by the ld. Counsel. Firstly, the reply dated 27th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the SCN, which led to the passing of the impugned order has not been considered by the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, 'Department'). Secondly, it is submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner by the Department. In addition, the plea of limitation has also been raised by the Petitioner. 5. Coming to the plea of limitation, it is seen that the impugned order is dated 1st February, 2025, however, it appears that the Form DRC-07 was uploaded on 9th February, 2025 on the GST Portal of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Shashank Sharma, ld. SSC submits that the impugned order was issued by the Department within the prescribed limitation period, however, due to a technical glitch, it may have been uploaded on the GST Portal on a later date. 7. Be that as it may, insofar as the reply dated 27th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the SCN d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be made on case to case basis and the reliance can be placed only when the case facts tally with the facts of the case. Therefore, the submissions/case laws/reply submitted by the noticee is neither relevant to this case nor tenable. On submissions made point-wise, also, I find that the taxpayers submissions are not in line with the audit observations and data available on portal, hence found not tenable. Whereas, for rest of the noticees neither the noticees nor any of their authorized representatives appeared before the Adjudicating Authority for personal hearing on the said dates. Hence, I am of the considered view that in the present case, Principle of Natural Justice as well as Principle of Adjudication has been duly followed and opportunities have been provided to the Noticees to put forth their defence in personal hearing. I find that the noticees had failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and therefore forfeit their claim in future related to violation of natural justice. I find it relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of V.K. Thampt Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin [1988 (033) ELT 0424], wherein Hon'ble Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsequent impugned demand order dated 9th February, 2025 in respect of Mr. Adesh Jain and Mr. Rajesh Jindal are concerned, in a matter arising out of the same SCN being W.P.(C) 11906/2025 titled Ganpati Polymers through its Proprietor Ankur Jain v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr., this Court has already relegated the parties to the appellate remedy in the following terms: "11. Heard. It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal. The Petitioner was well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him and such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever. The matter relates to alleged fraudulent availment of ITC in respect of which the demand has been raised. The only argument being made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed belatedly. 12. A perusal of the impugned order would itself show that the same was signed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST (North) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case" 16. The said legal position has also been reiterated by this Court in M/s Sheetal and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2025: DHC: 4057-DB) and by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 753 of 2023 titled 'Elesh Aggarwal v. Union of India' wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that no ground is made for interference on merits in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the decision in M/s Sheetal and Sons & Ors. (Supra) reads as under: "15. The Supreme Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 titled 'The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited' discussed the maintainability of a writ petition under Article226. In the said decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the position that existence of an alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the maintain....