TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is before this Court assailing an order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-Karauli, Bharatpur, whereby GST demand of Rs. 2,15,468/- was confirmed on account of alleged excess/incorrect claim of input tax credit and non-payment of applicable tax liability under the provisions of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. 2. The brief backdrop leading to the filing of the writ petition, shorn of unnecessary detail, is that the petitioner, a sole proprietorship engaged in the business of trading oil, is registered under the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (RGST Act) with GSTIN No. 08ABSPB6431H1ZL, its registered place of business being C-22, Naveen Mandi Yard, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner disputes both findings, asserting that no notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was ever issued or served, and that no opportunity of hearing preceded the order. 2.3 Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues on the lines of the grounds taken in the petition. He submits, inter alia, that the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned show cause notice, adjudication order, and consequential recovery are arbitrary, contrary to the RGST Act, and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 21, 265, and 300A of the Constitution. 3.1. Neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order, it is u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 99 of the RGST Rules, 2017, since no notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was ever issued or served before proceedings under Section 73 were initiated. The findings in the impugned order regarding scrutiny of returns and grant of hearing were therefore said to be factually incorrect and unsupported by the record. 3.4 Lastly, counsel submits that the petitioner has throughout been a bona fide and compliant registered dealer, regularly filing returns and discharging its tax liabilities, and had no reason to evade or ignore the proceedings. No prejudice would befall the respondents if the petitioner were permitted to reply to the show cause notice and the matter adjudicated afresh on merits after due hearing. On these grounds, it was prayed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard. (3) In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished within a period of thirty days of being informed by the proper officer or such further period as may be permitted by him or where the registered person, after accepting the discrepancies, fails to take the corrective measure in his return for the month in which the discrepancy is accepted, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action including those under section 65 ог section 66 or section 67, or proceed to determine the tax and other dues under section 73 or section 74." RULE- 99 "99. Scrutiny of returns.- (1) Where any return furnished by a registered person is selected for scrutiny, the proper officer shall scrutinize the same in acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Against this statutory backdrop, we now examine the respondents' stand on the issuance of the mandatory notice. For proper appreciation, paragraph 17 of the writ petition, along with the corresponding response filed by the respondents, is reproduced herein below: "17. That it is also pertinent to mention herein that Respondent No. 1, at page 2, second last paragraph of the Impugned Order, has erroneously and falsely recorded that, after scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, a notice intimating discrepancies was issued to the Petitioner through the GSTN portal and that full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the sa....