Dharma Enterpricses vs Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner

The petitioner in this case has submitted a petition seeking several reliefs from the Hon’ble Court. These include the request to review the records of the case, to set aside two specific orders issued by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 respectively, and to grant any other appropriate writ, order, or direction deemed necessary for the interest of justice.

The case revolves around the petitioner, who operates in the field of Ferrous waste and scrap and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017. The petitioner received a notice dated 13.03.2017 under [missing continuation]. The petitioner alleges that the notice was issued without proper authority and was unjustified. Subsequently, the petitioner faced additional challenges due to the impugned orders dated 19.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 respectively.

The petitioner contends that these orders were issued erroneously and unfairly, thereby causing harm to their business interests. Hence, they seek the intervention of the Hon’ble Court to review and set aside these orders. Additionally, the petitioner requests any other necessary relief that the court deems appropriate in the pursuit of justice.

In summary, the petitioner seeks redressal for what they perceive as unjust actions by the respondents, which have negatively impacted their business operations. They are seeking legal remedy through the court to rectify these issues and restore fairness in the proceedings.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking various reliefs from the court, including setting aside two orders issued by the respondents, which imposed tax liability and penalty on the petitioner’s business of Ferrous waste and scrap under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the notices and orders lacked adequate information about the alleged transactions on which Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the orders were passed without proper disclosure of relevant transaction details, leading to a flawed foundation for the imposition of tax liability and penalty. The petitioner seeks the intervention of the court to address these issues and provide appropriate relief in the interest of justice.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking several reliefs from the court. These include requesting the court to review records of the case, set aside two specific orders issued by the respondents, and issue any other appropriate directives in the interest of justice.

The case revolves around the petitioner, engaged in the business of Ferrous waste and scrap, being served a notice under Section 74(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This notice led to the imposition of tax liability and penalty on the petitioner, followed by an unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Authority.

The petitioner alleges a violation of the principle of natural justice, asserting that the authorities failed to disclose specific transactions upon which the alleged Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed. The petitioner argues that the lack of transparency in the notices and orders hindered their ability to defend against the allegations effectively.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that crucial details regarding the transactions in question were not provided in the original notices or orders, leaving the petitioner uninformed and unable to mount a proper defense. It was only upon the issuance of the appellate order that the petitioner learned about the specific transactions involving M/s V.K. Enterprises, Chhatarpur, which formed the basis of the liability imposed.

In contrast, the respondents argue that the petitioner was made aware of the details of the transactions through a communication dated 11.03.2019, which clearly outlined the value of the goods and the amount of ITC availed. The petitioner responded to this notice, indicating their awareness of the transactions in question.

The dispute thus centers on whether the authorities adequately communicated the details of the transactions to the petitioner, enabling them to defend against the allegations. The petitioner contends that crucial information was withheld, while the respondents assert that the petitioner was sufficiently informed.

The court will need to assess the evidence presented by both parties to determine whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and whether the orders in question should be set aside on the grounds of procedural fairness.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking various reliefs from the court, including setting aside two orders passed by the respondents, which imposed tax liability and penalty on the petitioner under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in the business of Ferrous waste and scrap, received a notice in March 2017, leading to the issuance of orders in May and August 2019 by the respondents. The petitioner contends that there was a violation of natural justice as the notices failed to disclose the specific transactions on which the alleged tax benefits were availed. The petitioner argues that crucial details were omitted, preventing them from mounting a proper defense. They claim to have been kept in the dark about the specifics until the appellate order was passed. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the petitioner was fully aware of the transactions in question and had received clear communication regarding them. The court, after hearing both sides, notes that the petitioner did not file a reply to the initial notice and finds the petitioner’s explanation for not doing so lacking in substance. The court emphasizes that the petitioner had disclosed the transactions in question in their subsequent reply to the notice, indicating their awareness of the situation. Therefore, the court concludes that the petitioner’s arguments do not hold merit, and dismisses the petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: