Back
ANITA SUMANTH
G. K. Shetty Builders Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Managing Director, K. V. Ramana Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the show cause notice No.129/2022-Audit-1 dated 31.03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent answerable to the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unsustainable in law and without authority of law.)
1. Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with necessary instructions to enable this Court to dispose the matter finally even at the stage of admission. Hence, by consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed finally even at this stage.
2. The challenge is to a show cause notice dated 31.03.2022. There is no legal infirmity that has been pointed out in the impugned order. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge.
3. The only point that is made out is that the issue raised in the show cause notice relates to the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Assessing Authority has sought various particulars in regard to the procedure for matching th
Proper verification of transactions and the requirement for a match of details in claims of Input Tax Credit, as mandated by Section 42(3) of the CGST Act, are crucial for the assessment process.
![CBC Fashions (Asia) Private Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director– T. R. Vijayakumar, Tirupur VS Assistant Commissioner [ST] [FAC] Bazaar Circle, Tirupur - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1367](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with Circular No.5 of 2021 and awaiting pending decisions in related cases before completing assessments.
The petitioner must follow statutory remedies before challenging tax demands and provide proof of ITC reversal as required by Section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the CGST Act.
The denial of Input Tax Credit requires verification of the supplier's tax payment, and unilateral action against the recipient without such verification is arbitrary.
The court held that the provisions enabling the denial of Input Tax Credit are within jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for statutory adherence in taxation disputes.
The court upheld the petitioner's right to an opportunity to contest the show cause notice and mandated document disclosure.
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
