2026 (6) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....D. V. Srikar, Adv., Mr. Karan Sachdev, Adv., Mr. Sumit Khadaria, Adv., Ms. Disha Jain, Adv., Ms. Parvati Nambiar, Adv., For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv., Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv., Item No.45 Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Mr. T. Rajnikanth Reddy, A.A.G., Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, Adv., Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv., Ms. Kranthi Boda, Asst. Commissioner, Ms. Deepa Reddy, Addl. Commissioner, Ms. Vasavi Jagannath, Addl. Commissioner, Mr. T.V. Prasad, Deputy State Tax Officer, Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Kanth Mundada, Adv., Mr. Arpit Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Shadab Azhar, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR. ORDER 1. We heard M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs in abeyance until disposal of I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2025 in W.P.No.35740 of 2025 and W.P. No. 39343 of 2025, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provision Sec. 67 (5) of GST Act,2017, and consequently direct the respondents to drop all subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner U/Sec. 74 of the GST Act, 2017, on failure to furnish all the documents including the 14 subject missing files which were seized on 26.12.2023 which are admittedly not available with the respondent no.1 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is also just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Reminder Notice cum Personal H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ning Assessment Years, the order came to be passed on 22.04.2026. In short, the position today is that final orders of assessment have been passed by the competent authority with respect to the liability of the petitioner as alleged. We only need to consider whether the petitioner could be said to be seriously prejudiced in the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of the 14 files which have gone missing. 8. As noted aforesaid, the case of the petitioner is that if he would have been in possession of the 14 files, he could have established his case accordingly whereas the case of the Department is that these 14 files are even otherwise not relevant and not a single document of those 14 files have been relied upon in the assessm....