Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 2069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ni Mr. Mihir Jhanwar For the Respondent : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Deepak Mittal Ms. Anjali Choudhary Ms. Sanskriti Shrimali & Mr. Sankalp Vijay Mr. Vinay Kant Saxena for UOI ORDER (ORAL) PER: ARUN MONGA, J. 1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2024 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-A, Bhilwara, whereby GST demand of Rs. 1,03,54,179 /- for Financial Year 2023-24, was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner was wholly unaware of the Show Cause Notice dated 12.07.2024 and the demand raised against it vide the Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2024. They submit that the petitioner came to know of the same only upon receipt of a recovery communication from the Department, wherein it was informed about the existence of a pending demand. Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Order-in-Original was duly served upon the petitioner in accordance with law. Consequently, the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en. "60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. (ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today where after, the Department shall proceed further after affor....