Prayer in W.P.No.35453 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2018-2019 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner.

Prayer in W.P.No.35458 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2019-2020 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner.

Prayer in W.P.No.35463 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2020-2021 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner.

For Petitioner : Dr.S.Sathyanarayanan (In all W.Ps)

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran (In all W.Ps) Government Advocate

COMMON ORDER

By this Common Order, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the respective impugned Orders all dated 15.07.2024 passed for the Tax Period 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, as detailed below:

3. The impugned Orders have preceded Intimation Notices in GST DRC-01A followed by the Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 to which the Petitioner has given reply.

4. The case of the Petitioner appears to be that the Petitioner was unable to carry on the business and therefore entered into a contract with one B.T.Nagaraj Reddy, who extracted the boulders from the site and the price was fixed based on the provisional advisor consultations / instructions and GST was duly discharged.

5. It is submitted that despite no incriminating being unearthed in the inspection during March 2024, Intimation Notices in DRC-01A were issued to the petitioner to which the Petitioner had replied.

6. It is submitted that the Petitioner was also issued with Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 to which also, the Petitioner has replied. It is further submitted that the finding arrived in the impugned Orders regarding “fraud”, “willful-misstatement” and “suppression of fact” is absent.

7. It is further submitted that the Petitioner sold only rock boulders which are not capable of being used or even followed by the measurements and that the said Contractor namely B.T.Nagaraj Reddy had discharged the tax liability, who extracted the boulders, and sold them from the Petitioner’s site. Hence, there is no loss to the exchequers.

8. That apart, it is submitted that the impugned Orders have been passed without the Petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard and therefore the impugned Orders are liable to be quashed and the Writ Petitions be allowed.

9. Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent on the other hand would submit that the impugned Orders are detailed Orders and does not merit any interference and therefore these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

10. By the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed based on the seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner. In the show cause notice, the department has arrived at the quantity of boulders cleared by the petitioner in Cubic M