2026 (6) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hrough: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Senior Panel counsel of UOI with Ms Nupur Sharma, Advocate for R-1/UOI. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate for R-GNCTD. JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. Heard. 2. The Order in Original dated 30th March, 2026 is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'). Drawing support from order of the State GST Authorities, in exercise of powers under section 73 of the Act, it is the contention of counsel for petitioner that on the very same set of documents, the State GST Authorities have closed the proceedings. It is further urged that the proceedings under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evidence is an issue which can be borne into by the Appellate Authority and this Court should not infer from the factual matrix which are referred to in the impugned order and the evidence thereof, to claim that it is open for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. According to him, same shall be left to the discretion of the Appellate Authority. 5. It is further urged that the hearing was granted and a speaking order is passed in the matter and, merely, because appreciation of evidence is not to the comfort of petitioner, that by itself, will not lead to the conclusion that the evidence has been inappropriately appreciated. As such, dismissal of petition is sought. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner, in rejoinder, states that in case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l for petitioner has stated that once the material produced on record was found to be sufficient by State GST Authorities, it was binding on the Central GST Authorities to take the same into account for closure of proceedings under Section 74 of the Act. 13. Appreciation, re-appreciation of evidence in regard to same are vested with the competent authorities. It is not in dispute that jurisdiction of Appellate Authority is restricted, rather it can be inferred from the very language of the jurisdiction vested in the Appellate Authority that it can reappreciate the entire evidence and if so required, may permit the petitioner to produce additional evidence. 14. Merely because the petitioner shall be burdened with the satisfaction of co....