TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. C.B.Gupta for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.3-Joint Commissioner Vadodara-II in the office of Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara II Commissionerate on the ground that the said order is without jurisdiction by ignoring the submissions made by the petitioner that for the same amount of Rs. 4,15,55,899/-, the petitioner had already received a show-cause notice dated 06.09.2021 from the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara-II and thereafter, the Order-in-original was also passed pursuant to the said show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, it appears that respondent No.3 issued a separate show cause notice dated 13.07.2022 under section 74 of the GST Act wherein it was again alleged that the petitioner has wrongly carried forward the inadmissible CENVAT Credit of the same amount of Rs. 4,15,55,899/-. 3.4 The petitioner filed reply dated 28.07.2022 informing respondent No.3 that on the same subject matter, a show-cause notice was issued on 06.09.2021 and the adjudication is under process. The petitioner thereafter, during the course of personal hearing, by letter dated 27.10.2023, submitted that the Order-in- Original dated 20.02.2023 is passed pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 06.09.2021 and therefore, the proceedings issued pursuant to the show-cause notice da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TMI 133 Jharkhand High Court; * Tripati Ispat Udyog vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024 (1) TMI 376 Jharkhand High Court. 5.1 It was further submitted that by the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 27.12.2023 respondent No.3 has levied the tax on the same subject matter which is impermissible in law. In support of his submissions, following decisions were relied upon: * Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT reported in AIR 1969 SC 501; * Union of India vs. Tata Iron and Steel CO. Ltd reported in 1977 (1) LTR J61 (SC). 5.2 It was submitted that the initiation of parallel proceedings based on the same facts and cause of action is inherently without jurisdiction resulting into abuse of the legal process. In support of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s-stated and suppressed the facts of wrongly availed the Input Tax Credit in FORm GST TRAN 1, from the departmnet. The said wrong availment of Inptu Tax Credit came to the notice of the department only during the course of verification of FORM GST TRAN 1 and the records of the petitioner. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner appeared to have availed Input Tax Credit of Rs. 4,15,55,899/- (including Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess) on ineligible services, by resorting to supression of the material facts, mis-statment of facts and contravention of provsiions of section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 the rules framed thereunder, with the intent to avail and utilize the Input Tax Credit wrongly and consequently evade th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, Show cause notice No. V/GST/09/Saint-Gobai/Div-X/ADC/2022 -23 dated 13.07.2022 for Rs. 4,15,55,899/- was issued by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara II Commissionerate, for recovery of carried forwarded Central Tax Credit in FORM GST TRAN-1 under section 74(1) of the CGST Act,2017. Thus, both the Show cause notices have been issued under separate legal framework." 7.1 It was therefore, submitted that no interference may be made while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Chokshi submitted that as the impugned order is without....