Ms Sri Sarang Steel Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner Department Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sri Sarang Steel, engaged in trading Railway scraps, challenged show cause notices and adjudication orders issued under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Taxes (JGST) Act. The notices alleged availing ineligible input tax credit (ITC) through fake invoices and bill/circular trading without physical movement of goods. The petitioner's credit ledger was blocked, and they were initially asked to pay a substantial amount under Section 74(5). The petitioner submitted documentary proof of genuine transactions. While proceedings under Section 74 were dropped, proceedings under Section 73 were initiated, leading to adjudication orders. The petitioner argued that the basis for these proceedings, namely the alleged transactions with suppliers M/s Jai Jawan Khastha Bhandar and M/s Priti Enterprises, had been set aside by this Court in other matters. The petitioner also contended that inspection reports and relied-upon documents were not provided, violating natural justice principles.
Held
The Court held that the show cause notices and adjudication orders issued to the petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the primary reason for initiating proceedings against the petitioner was their transactions with M/s Jai Jawan Khastha Bhandar and M/s Priti Enterprises. Crucially, this Court had previously set aside the show cause notices and adjudication orders in the cases of these suppliers in analogous writ petitions (W.P.(T) No. 3153 of 2020, etc.) vide order dated 21.06.2021, remitting the matters back to the adjudicating authority. In light of this, the Court found that the sole cause of action against the petitioner no longer survived. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case but directed the respondents to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice, following the principles of natural justice and keeping in mind the ratio in M/s. Tarapore & Company and D.Y.Beathel Enterprises. The petitioner's credit ledger, which was blocked, had been unblocked during the pendency of the applications, though the amount was realized.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notices and adjudication orders issued under Section 73 of the JGST Act are liable to be quashed on the ground that the underlying proceedings against the petitioner's suppliers have been set aside by this Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the non-furnishing of inspection reports and relied-upon documents to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings invalid? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: - The primary cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the JGST Act no longer survives, as this Court, in similar matters concerning the petitioner's suppliers (M/s Jai Jawan Khastha Bhandar and M/s Priti Enterprises), vide order dated 21.06.2022, set aside the show cause notices and adjudication orders. Although liberty was granted to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings, the petitioner argued that the current proceedings against them should not be kept pending on this basis. - The respondents failed to provide inspection reports and relied-upon documents, and denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice, as held in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 465. - The petitioner, as a purchaser, had duly discharged its liability, and the department did not contend otherwise. Punitive action should not be taken against a bona fide dealer, citing M/S Tarapore Company, Jamshedpur Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.(T) No. 773 of 2018). Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the Revenue in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding the suppliers' cases being set aside or the violation of natural justice. However, the adjudication order itself indicates that the petitioner's suppliers were alleged to have claimed ITC on fake invoices and passed on the benefit, and that the petitioner had not satisfied the conditions under Section 16(2)(c) of the JGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142(1), Section 73(1), Section 73(9), Section 74(5), Section 74(1), Section 16(2)(c), Section 76, Section 76(2), Section 155
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 2762 of 2021
With
W.P.(T) No. 2798 of 2021
M/s Sri Sarang Steel, a proprietorship firm, having its principle place of business at 337, ITI More, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, Bokaro, through its proprietor Manoj Kumar.
…… Petitioner
(in both the cases)
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary-cum-commissioner, Department of State Tax, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2.Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, Having its office at Luby Circular Road, P.O. and P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. 3.Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro, having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro. 4.State Tax Officer, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro, having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro.
……… Respondents
(in both the cases)
-------- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
-------- For the Petitioner
: Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv.
(in both the cases)
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, G.A.-I
Mr. P.A.S.Pati, G.A.-II
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
--------
08/13.07.2022 Per Deepak Roshan, J: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since both these writ applications are interconnected and common issue is involved, as such both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(T) No. 2762 of 2021 is with respect to the Tax period from April 2018 to March 2019 whereas W.P.(T) No. 2798 of 2021 is with respect to the Tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. 3. The writ applications have been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside show cause notices, both dated 23.07.2020, (Annexure-3 in both applications) issued under section 73(1) and Rule 142(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Taxes, (JGST) Act and also for quashing and setting aside the adjudication orders, both dated 19.10.2020, issued under section 73(9) of the JGST Act and DRC-7, both dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-4 & 4/1 respectively in both cases).
2
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents for unblocking credit ledger which was blocked on 17.02.2020 and on 18.02.2020 to the tune of Rs. 47,38,408/-; however, during pendency of these applications, the credit ledger has been unblocked though the amount has been realized.
The case of the petitioner is that that it is engaged in trading of Railway scraps and is duly registered under the provision of GST Act. An inspection was carried out at the business premises of the petitioner at the instance of administrative direction dated 25.06.2019 issued by JCST based on one intelligence note dated 13.06.2019 alleging therein that the petitioner is engaged in availing ineligible credit of input tax under fake invoices by engaging himself in bill trading/circular trading without physical movement of goods. No inspection report, whatsoever, has ever been served upon the petitioner nor the documents relied upon has ever been supplied to the petitioner. Further, without any information/notice the respondent-Department suo moto blocked the credit ledger account of the petitioner and the petitioner was in receipt of DRC-01A being intimation of liability under section 74 (5) of JGST Act asking him to pay the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,35,40,420.60/- failing which SCN will be issued under section 74(1) of the JGST Act, and if the petitioner wished to file the written submissions, same can be filed by 12.03.2020. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner accordingly filed written submission alongwith all the documentary proof that the transactions have actually taken place and it is not a sham transaction. The respondent although dropped the proceeding under section 74(1) of the JGST Act, however, initiated proceedings under section 73(1) of the JGST Act and straightaway issued show cause notices, without issuing DRC-01A. From perusal of SCN, it is clear that all the submissions and documents produced therein being copy of invoices, e-way bills, measurement slips, proof regarding payment against good transport agency, etc. were duly verified and found genuine. However, merely for the reason that a proceeding under section 74 of the JGST Act has been initiated against the supplier of the petitioner namely M/s Jai Jawan Khastha Bhandar and M/s Priti Enterprises, liability has been fastened upon the petitioner under section 73(1) of the JGST Act. Petitioner again submitted a detailed reply alongwith the proof of the transactions entered into with its suppliers but without considering the 3
submissions and even without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent authority passed the adjudication order under section 73 of the JGST Act merely on the ground as mentioned in the SCN that as the supplier of the petitioner has utilised its ITC in order to discharge its tax liability, there is no actual payment of tax and thus the condition as stipulated under section 16(2)(c) of the JGST Act has not complied with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main cause of action for initiating proceeding under section 73 of the JGST Act does not survive as this Court in the matter of suppliers of the petitioner being W.P.(T) No. 3153 of 2020 and another analogous matters vide order dated 21.06.2022 has been pleased to set aside the show cause notice, adjudication order and summary of order/demand notice in DRC-07. Although a liberty has been given to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a proper show cause notice and to take a decision thereupon in accordance with law. She further submits that although such liberty has been given to the Respondent department but the fact remains that at the present there is no proceeding against the suppliers of the petitioner meaning thereby; the main cause for initiating proceeding against the petitioner no longer survives as on date. She contended that merely by keeping the present proceedings pending on the ground that the department might initiate a fresh proceeding against the suppliers of the petitioner is not justified. She further submits that the law casts an obligation upon the parties to serve the documents/inspection report which has been relied upon by either of the parties in a proceedings, however in this case no inspection report has ever been served upon the petitioner and/or no opportunity has been given to cross examine witnesses who has supported the inspection report and intelligence note and the same is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 and submits that in a case where the respondents have relied upon the documents obtained during inspection in the premises of the Assessee on the basis of intelligence note the same should be given to the Assessee to enable them to properly answer to the charges pressed upon. Petitioner
4
being the purchaser has duly discharged its liability and had paid the tax. It is not the case of respondent department that the petitioner has not discharged its liability under the provisions of GST Act. The intent of the legislation cannot be to punish the dealer acting in a bona fide manner.
She further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/S Tarapore Company, Jamshedpur Versus State of Jharkhand &Ors., being W.P.(T) No. 773 of 2018 and submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has been pleased to quash the assessment order in following manner: “we are satisfied due to bona fides on part of the Petitioner, no punitive action was required to be taken, or warranted against the Petitioner. The selling dealer which had defaulted in filing its return or depositing the tax collection from the petitioner in the Government treasury, how the punitive action would be taken against the Petitioner firm, only for the reason that JVAT Act provided for such actions against both the dealers. We are not entering into the question of vires. Certainly any punitive action is warranted only against the defaulting dealers and not against the dealers acting in bona fide manner.”
Learned counsel further submits that Section 76 of the JGST Act deals with the situation wherein the tax is collected by a person but not paid to the Government. Further, Section 76(2) states that the proper officer may serve on the person liable to pay such amount, a notice requiring to show cause as to why the said amount as specified in the notice, should not be paid by him to the Government and why a penalty equivalent to the amount specified in the notice should not be imposed on him. Thus, section 76 casts a duty upon the respondent department to initiate a proceeding against the person who has collected the tax but not paid the same to the Government exchequer and not against the bona fide person. She contended that twice the amount cannot be recovered on the same transaction and if a proceeding has already been initiated against the defaulting dealers and if they are found defaulters, recovery proceedings can be initiated against them and tax along with interests and penalty be recovered from them and the petitioner cannot be charged against the same transactions.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and 5
Customs GST-Investigation Wings, Government of India, referring to GST Council Letter No. F No. 96/GCG-offence case date/GSTC/2019 dated 18.03.2019 issued ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ (SOP) vide office memorandum dated 12.05.2019. This memorandum was issued to curb the wrong availment/Forward Transaction of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter ITC) by the registered person under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Learned counsel further submits that the State Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand while scrutinizing the registered persons/dealers as directed by the State Taxes Department HQ, it was detected that many tax payers under GST are though physically nonexistent but had filed GSTR-1 and allowed the other dealers to utilize the said ITC. The Head Quarter accordingly vide letter Va.Kr./GST Int. cell/122/2019-2247 dated 25.06.2019 sent the Intelligence Note No. 30 dated 13.06.2019 to the concerned field office. He further submits that based upon the aforesaid Intelligence Note No. 80 dated 13.06.2019, the State Taxes Joint commissioner, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad directed the concerned officials to proceed and investigate in accordance with law. During investigation of the business premise of the petitioner, no material whatsoever was found available, even though as per the registration certificate of the petitioner under GST it was shown as dealer of Iron, Iron scrap etc. On demand of the records/documents related to the business carried out by the representative of the petitioner, only few documents i.e. few invoices and eway bills were produced.
He further submits that through the said inspection report dated 11.07.2019 the petitioner was directed to produce all the requisite records on 17.07.2019; however, he did not turn up on 17.07.2019 before the authority. As such, summon (reference no. 4129 dated 24.01.2020) under Section 70 of the GST was issued to the petitioner. The proprietor appeared on the date fixed and requested for some time to produce the documents. The time was granted and the petitioner was directed to produce the documents by 04.02.2020. The proprietor of the petitioner produced the invoice related to inward/outward supplies, related Eway bills, few slip of weighing bridge and pages of the ledger accounts. During scrutiny of the documents/registers produced on behalf of the petitioner, it 6
was found that the petitioner had grossly violated section 35 of the JGST Act read with Rule 56 of JGST Rule.
On the basis of facts determined as per Intelligence notes no. 80 dated 13.06.2019, inspection report dated 11.07.2019 and after scrutinizing the documents/register produced by the petitioner, intimation under Section 74(5) of the JGST Act, 2017 was issued vide order dated 25.02.2020; however, despite the above intimation, the petitioner did not pay the tax liability as determined. As such a detailed show cause notice dated 23.07.2020 was issued to the petitioner under Section 73(1) of the GST Act and Rule 142(1) of the GST Rules and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, an order under Section 73(9) of the JGST Act was passed and issued on 19.10.2020 for financial year 2017-18 & 2018-19 wherein it was categorically indicated that the petitioner had availed the ITC passed by the dealers (M/s. Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar, M/s. Priti Enterprises) involved in fraudulent passing of ITC. It was found that the ITC so forwarded by the dealers (M/s. Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar, M/s. Priti Enterpirses) to the petitioner had not actually paid tax to the Government and had shown its tax liability paid to the Government by availing the fraudulent ITC as available in ITC ledger.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that an inspection was carried out at the business premises of the petitioner at the instance of administrative direction dated 25.06.2019 issued by JCST based on one intelligence note dated 13.06.2019 alleging therein that the petitioner is engaged in availing ineligible credit of input tax under fake invoices by engaging himself in bill trading/circular trading without physical movement of goods. Thereafter, the Respondent department also blocked the credit ledger account of the petitioner and the petitioner was in receipt of DRC-01A being intimation of liability under section 74(5) of JGST Act asking him to pay the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,35,40,420.60/- failing which SCN will be issued under section 74(1) of the JGST Act. The petitioner duly filed written submission along with all the documentary proof that the transactions have actually taken place and it is not a sham transaction. however, during pendency of these applications, the credit ledger has been unblocked though the amount has been realized.
7
The respondent although dropped the proceeding under section 74(1) of the JGST Act, however, initiated proceedings under section 73(1) of the JGST Act and straightaway issued show cause notices, without issuing DRC-01A under Section 73(5) of the Act.
At this stage, it pertinent to mention here that the respondent- Department has duly accepted all the contentions of the petitioner and also the documents produced by him being copy of invoices, e-way bills, measurement slips, proof regarding payment against good transport agency, etc. and after verification and re-verification found them to be genuine. However, merely for the reason that the Assessee had entered into certain transactions with some of those companies especially M/s Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar and M/s. Priti Enterprises, upon whom proceedings has been initiated under Section 74 of the Act for passing on input tax credit through fraudulent method, the claim of Input Tax credit of the petitioner has been rejected and accordingly the petitioner have been asked for reversal of the same along with interest and penalty.
For ready reference relevant part of the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow:- Þ5- dj&ns; O;fDr }kjk lefiZr vH;kosnu@nkoksa@lk{;ksa ds vkyk esa iwjh dk;Zokgh dh iquZleh{kk dh xbZ] rkfd U;k;iw.kZ fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gks ldsA (i) iquZ tkap esa dj&ns; O;fDr }kjk lefiZr lHkh E-way bill lgh ik;k x;kA (ii) Computer generated dkaVk iphZ dks muds }kjk iqu% lR;kfir fd;k x;k gSA (iii) vH;kosnu esa ;gh Hkh lqfpr fd;k x;k gS fd dj&ns; O;fDr us ITC Mismatch ds fo:} iwoZ esa Hkqxrku fd;k gS ,oa mDr dk lk{; Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;kA (iv) GTA lsok ij fd;s x;s O;; ds fo:} RCM ds Hkqxrku djus dh Liability ij Lo;a Lohdkj djrs gSA ,oa fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku djus dks rS;kj gSA¼ dj$C;kt$n.M dk fu/kkZj.k visf{kr gSA½ (v) dk;Zokgh dh iquZleh{kk esa ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd dafMdk&3 esa lwfpc} vkiwfrZdÙkkZvksa esa ls dqN ,sls vkiwfrZdÙkkZ Hkh gS] ftlds fo:} jkT;&dj vapy] ck kjks }kjk tkWapksijkar ¼ Fraudulent Method ls ITC dk nkok djus@vxzlkfjr ¼ pass on ½ djus ds vkjksi esa /kkjk&74 vUrxZr½ dkjZokbZ gqbZ gSA Li"Vr% bu dj&ns; O;fDr ls izkIr vkiwfrZ ds vk/kkj ij M/s Sarang Steel ds }kjk nkokd`r ITC Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA
¼gkykafd mDr lwph esa lfEefyr vU; vkiwfrZdÙkkZ ds laca/k esa bl izdkj dk dksbZ vkjksi ugha gSa] vr% muls izkIr vkiwfrZ esa lfUufgr ITC dks vekU; fd;s tkus ds izLrko@fu.kZ; dks rRdky la’kksf/kr djuk U;k;laxr izrhr gksrk gSA½
bl izdkj] fuEukafdr ¼vkjksi fl} dj&ns;½ O;fDr;ksa@vkiwfrZdÙkkZvksa ls pass on fd;s x;s ITC ds ykHkkFkhZ ds :i esa M/s Sri Sarang Steel ds fo:} ITC Reversal dh dkjZokbZ visf{kr gksxhaA
M/s Sri Sarang Steel (GSTIN- 20AKLPK 4147M1Z2) us Fradulent Method ls ITC Pass on djus okys ¼dj&ns; O;fDr;ksa½ ls fuEuor~ ITC izkIr fd;k gS] tks fd rRdky vekU; gSa gksus ds dkj.k Reversible gS%&
fofÙk; o’kZ & 2018&19 d z- l a- vkiwfÙkdÙkkZ izfr’Bku dk uke GSTIN
Taxable Value IGST CGST SGST CESS 1- M/s Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar 20AERPR 7894A1Z7 9597930.0 0 0.00 863813.70 863813 .70 0.00
8
2- M/s Priti Enterprises 20AETPR7 652A1ZH 39517775. 00 0.00 3556599.7 5 355659 9.75
00
Total 49115705. 00 0.00 4420413.4 5 442041 3.45 0.00
mijk r lHkh vkiwfÙkdÙkvksa us M/s Sri Sarang Steel dks GSTR-1 ds ek/;e ls ITC dks pass on fd;k gS ,oa Lo;a ds ikl QthZ :i ls l`ftr ,oa lafpr ITC dk iz;ksx dj GSTR-3B esa dj ds Hkqxrku dks n”kkZ;k x;k gSA bl izdkj] M/s. Sri Sarang Steel us ftl ITC dk nkok@miHkksx fd;k gS] mlds fo:} vkiwfrdÙkkZ us ljdkj dks okLrfod :i esa@(Actually)] dj dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k gS (Condition of Section 16(2) (c) of GST Act 2017 is not satisfied; hence such ITC is reversible as per law)
iwoksZDr dafMdk 5(iv)/(v) ds vk/kkj ij dj&ns; O;fDr M/s Sri Sarang Steel ds fo:} la”kksf/kr :i esa] /kkjk& 73 ds vUrxZr fuEuor~ dj] C;kt ,oa n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gS%&
F.Y. Liability against Tax Head Tax Interest Penalty Total
2018- 19 Reversal of ITC CGST 4420413.45 1060899.23 442041.35 5923354.03 SGST 4420413.45 1060899.23 442041.35 5923354.03 Total 8840826.90 2121798.46 884082.70 11846708.06 Non Payment of RCM CGST 4368.73 1048.50 10000.00 15417.23 SGST 4368.73 1048.50 10000.00 15417.23 Total 8737.46 2097.00 20000.00 30834.46 Total
36 2123895.46 904082.70 11877542.52
vr^% fu;ekuqlkj /kkjk 73 (1) ,oa fu;e 142 (1) ds }kjk fofgr izko/kkukuqlkj O;olk;h dks dkj.k i`PNk uksfVl (SCN) ds ek/;e ls iqu% i`PNk fd;k x;k fd D;ksa ugha mijk r vuqlkj dj&ns; O;fDr ds fo:} C;kt lfgr ITC ds Reversal dk vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tk;A SCN izkfIr ds 30 fnuksa ds vUnj muls Li’Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k tkuk @fu/kkZfjr C;kt lfgr ITC dk Reversal fd;s tkus gsrq funs”k Hkh fn;k x;kA
mijk r SCN ds fo:} O;olk;h us Form GST DRC-06 esa viuk tokc nkf[ky fd;k ,oa O;fDrxr :i ls vius i{k dks j[kk A muds }kjk vius i{k esa lefiZr fd;s x;s leLr nkoksa@lk{;ksa dk voyk u@leh{kk fd;k x;kA muds }kjk iwoZ esa lefiZr nkoksa@ lk{;ksa dks orZeku SCN ds lanHkZ iqu% nksgjk;k x;k gSA O;olk;h us E-way bill, Transport bilty ,oa vkiwfrZdŸkkZ dks fd;s x;s Hkqxrku bR;kfn dk lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;kA fdUrq O;olk;u ds }kjk bl vk”k; dk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldk] ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lda dh tkap/khu vkiwfrZdŸkkvksa ¼ftuds vkiwfrZ ds fo:} ITC vekU; fd;k x;k gS%& lEcfU/kr vkiwfrZdŸkkvksa ds fo:} Fake invoice ds vk/kkj ij ITC Claim djus ,oa pass on djus ds vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ gqbZ gS] ,oa esllZ Jh lkjax LVhy Hkh muds }kjk pass on ITC ds ykHkkFkhZ gSa½ ds }kjk okLrfod (Actual) :i esa dj dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSaA
pfpZr vkiwfrZdŸkkvksa us GSTR-1 dks nkf[ky fd;k gS ,oa mDr ds ek/;e ls M/s Sri Sarang Steel dks ITC Pass on Hkh fd;k gS] lkFk gh GSTR-1 ds vuqlkj ns; dj ds Hkqxrku dks GSTR- 3B (Return) esa nf”kZr Hkh fd;k gS] fdUrq GSTR-3B esa nf”kZr fd;k x;k leLr Hkqxrku ITC dk mi;ksx djrs gw, fd;k x;k gSA pwWafd dj&ns; vkiwfrZdŸkkZ Fake Invoice ds vk/kkj ij ITC Claim djus ,oa pass on djus ds vkjksfir gS ,oa muds Credit Leger esa lafpr ITC] tkWap esa vekU; (invalid) ik;k x;k gS] vr% mDr vekU; ITC dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fd;k x;k Hkqxrku okLrfod (Actual) ugha gks ldrk gSA bl izdkj] M/s Sri Sarang Steel us vkjksfir dj&ns; O;fDr;ksa ls tks Hkh vkiwfrZ izkIr fd;k gS] mlds fo:} mu vkiwfrZdŸkkvksa ds }kjk ljdkj dks dj dk Hkqxrku okLrfod :i esa fd;k tkuk LFkkfir ugha gksrk gS [Condition 16(2) (c) is not satisfied]A/kkjk& 16¼2½¼c½ dh “krZ ds vuqlkj izkIrdŸkkZ O;olk;h dks ITC dk ykHk rHkh fn;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd og /kkjk&155 ds vuqlkj ;g lkfcr dj ldsa fd ftl vkiwfrZ ds fo:} og ITC dk nkok dj jgsa gSa mlesa lfUufgr dj dk Hkwxrku okLrfod :i esa ljdkj dks fd;k tk pqdk gS (,sls djus esa O;olk;h loZJh lkjax LVhy vlQy jgsa )A lkFk gha Non payment of RCM ds fo:} fu/kkZfjr nsunkjh dk iz”u gS] O;olk;h ds }kjk fn;k x;k Li’Vhdj.k larks’ktud ugha gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ;ksX; ughs gSA
vr% SCN ds ek/;e ls fu/kkZfjr dj&C;kt&n.M dh jkf”k dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, vafre :i ls esllZ Jh lkjax LVhy ds fo:} nsunkjh dk fu/kkZj.k fuUeuor~ fd;k tkrk gS%&
F.Y. Tax Head Tax Interest Penalty Total 2018-19 CGST 4424782.18 1061947.73 452041.35 5938771.26 SGST 4424782.18 1061947.73 452041.35 5938771.26 Total 8849564.36 2123895.46 904082.70 11877542.52
bl vkns”k dks GST Portal ij GST DRC-07 lfgr fuxZr fd;k tkrk gSAß
After going through paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned adjudication order dated 19.10.2020 it clearly transpires that the respondent No.4 at paragraph 5 & 6 of its order had admitted that upon re-
9
verification, it was found that e-way bills and computer generated measurement slip are true and genuine documents and the petitioner in the past has duly discharged its liability towards any mismatch in ITC.
At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the said M/s. Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar and M/s. Priti Enterprises with whom it was alleged that the petitioner was having transactions had filed writ application before this Court being W.P.(T) No. 3153 of 2020, 154 of 2020 and 3179 of 2020 (M/s. Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar) for three respective assessments years and W.P.(T) No. 3210 of 2010 and 3211 of 2020 (M/s. Priti Enterprises Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) for the respective two assessment years and those writ applications were partly allowed by this court and the respective impugned show cause notices, the adjudication orders and the summary of the order/demand notices in DRC-07 in the case of those petitioners were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the concerned authority/adjudicating officer to proceed with the matter in accordance with law vide order dated 21.06.2021. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the respondent-Department has duly accepted all the contentions of the petitioner and found the e-way bills and computer generated measurement slip to be correct and genuine documents and the sole reason for initiating the proceedings against this petitioner and passing of the impugned adjudication orders was due to his transaction with M/s Jai Jawan Kastha Bhandar and M/s. Priti Enterprises and when the cases of those assesses have been remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law; interest of justice demands that the case of this petitioner should also be remitted back to the adjudicating authority, inasmuch as, the sole cause of action does not survives.
Consequently, show cause notices, both dated 23.07.2020, (Annexure-3 in both applications) issued under section 73(1) and Rule 142(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Taxes, (JGST) Act and also the adjudication orders, both dated 19.10.2020, issued under section 73(9) of the JGST Act and DRC-07, both dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-4 & 4/1 respectively in both cases); are hereby quashed and set-aside.
It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case, however, the respondents are directed to proceed in the matter from the stage of show cause notice after following principle of natural justice
10
keeping in mind the ratio decided in the case of M/s. Tarapore & Company, Jamshedpur Versus The State of Jharkhand being W.P.(T) No. 773 of 2018 and also in the case of D.Y.Beathel Enterprises Versus State Tax Officer (Data Cell), Tirunelveli, reported in [2021] 127 taxmann.com 80 (Madras).
With the aforesaid directions, both these writ applications stand disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/AFR
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.