Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent, Cgst, Delhi West – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, aggrieved by the search conducted in its premises on 05.05.2022 and 26.08.2022 under Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act'). The petitioner claims that the searches were conducted by the proper officer without having any reason to believe that the petitioner had suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods and services or to the stock of goods in its possession.
2. During the course of the proceedings, the concerned officer issued a demand cum show cause notice dated 01.03.2023 (hereafter `impugned show cause notice'). According to the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice was issued beyond the period as specified under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, on 24.05.2023, the petitioner moved an application (CM No.28074/2023) seeking early disposal of the above-captioned petition. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be confined to the petitioner's challenge to the impugned show cause notice. The petitio
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice after the specified period does not invalidate the notice, and the court may reserve all rights and conten....
A show cause notice issued under the GST Act based on an investigation by an improper officer is invalid and must be set aside.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the assessee to invoke the provisions of the GST Act to seek release of the goods, as highlighted in relevant judgments.
The court established that under Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, a bank guarantee is mandatory for the provisional release of seized goods.
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
Compliance with statutory provisions, specifically Section 67(6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules, is necessary for the release of seized goods.
Retention of seized documents is valid under applicable statutory provisions when ongoing inquiries are necessary, reflecting judicial deference to regulatory timelines and the complexity of fraud in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
