Cwp No. 28974 of 2024 · Punjab Arh Chandigarh Njab And Haryana High Court · 2024

opped by the respondents vide order dated 28 ted 28.02.2023. With the same regard regard, the office of the DGGI had also issu o issued notices to the petitioner ioner to which the petitioner had submitte bmitted its reply.

3. Learned arned senior counsel submits that wh at while the DGGI was seized with the matte matter, the notice under section 74 o n 74 of the Act could not have been issued to d to the petitioner. Further, he als he also argues that the show cause notice iss tice issued under section 74 of the Act t out he Act does not reflect and point out as to w to what manner of concealment o ent of tax has been done by the MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) petitione titioner. It is his submission that as p , the at as per section 74 of the Act, the show cau ow cause notice should point out as ut as to what are the incriminating allegatio egations against the petitioner and and as to how the petitioner has attempte empted a fraud to evade tax, any willf tax, y willful mis-statement to evade tax, or suppre suppression of facts to evade tax.

4. He relies relies on judgment passed by the Sup Raj he Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur adur Narain Singh Sugar Mills L ills Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, r rs, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 81, w y the , which has been followed by the Allahaba lahabad High Court in HCL Infot er, Infotech Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commer mercial Tax and another, 2024 (9 f his 4 (9) TMI 1644. In support of his submissi bmissions, he has taken us to para f the Nos.22, 23, 24 and 25 of the concerne ncerned judgment of the Allahabad Hi ad High Court.

5. We hav e have carefully considered his su t the his submissions and find that the contentio ntentions raised by the petitioner are are wholly misconceived. Issuance of notice notice under section 73 of the Act and d not ct and dropping the same would not prevent t event the authorities from independent endently initiating proceedings under section 7 ction 74 of the Act. The said proposit d by oposition has also been accepted by the Allah Allahabad High Court in HCL Infote nfotech Ltd. (supra).

6. So far as far as the question raised by the pet rallel he petitioner with regard to parallel proceedi oceedings being conducted by the DGG GST e DGGI and the Haryana State GST Intelligen telligence Unit as well as Assista T is ssistant Commissioner, CGST is concerne ncerned, we find that while the As GST Assistant Commissioner, CGST issued a ued a letter dated 10.03.2023 to the m to to the petitioner requesting him to deposit t posit the tax liability, the office of ce of the DGGI only issued notice MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document seeking c eking certain queries. However, none f the none of the authorities, either of the CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) CGST o ST or the DGGI have proceeded ded or initiated proceedings under section 7 ction 74 of the Act.

7. We find e find that the notice under section ction 74 of the Act has only been issued to ued to the petitioner by the Haryan e its aryana State Tax (SGST), vide its impugne pugned notice dated 03.08.2024. Al 24. Along with summary of show cause no use notice, the grounds have been deta n detailed in the first para which, for the refere reference of the present case, reflects eflects as under: “1. On review of GSTR 9 and and GSTR 2A, it has been noticed that the taxpayer has availed ailed excess ITC to the tune of Rs.8,84,57,976/- under head IGST GST and Rs.23,44,08,735/- in CGST and Rs.23,43,95,663/- und under SGST in GSTR-3B on being compared to I'I'C appearin earing in GSTR- 2A. Same is evident from Table 8D of GSTR-9.

9. Since, the vendor has not declared his tax liability in GSTR STR-1 due to which ITC is not appearing in GSTR-2A, there therefore, this creates an impression that the vendor of taxpa axpayer has not deposited tax liability in government treasury. sury. Due to this reason, the recipient i.e. taxpayer has not fulfille lfilled condition of section 16(2) (c) of CGST/HGST Act, 2017. 16

017. You are hereby Show Caused as to why said amount o Ca nt of tax/ITC along with applicable interest under section 50 n 50(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and penalty under section Ac tion 74 of the CGST/SGST ” Act, 2017 should not be recovered.” Ac

8. From th om the aforesaid, it is apparent tha t the nt that the allegations against the petitione titioner are that while he is stated of o the ted of having availed excess to the tune of e of Rs.8,84,57,976/- under head IGS GST d IGST; Rs.23,44,08,735/- in CGST and Rs.2 d Rs.23,43,95,663/- under SGST, how ng in , however, same is not appearing in GSTR- - 2A which reflects that the taxpa e tax taxpayer has not deposited the tax MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28974-2024 2024 (O&M) liability bility in the Government treasury asury and has availed the same wrongful ongfully. Resultantly, the notice has b has been issued to the petitioner.

9. The peti e petitioner, however, instead of fil of filing reply to the show cause notice, d tice, directly approached this Court a ourt assailing the said show cause notice in tice in the writ petition. The proceedin Act ceedings under section 74 of the Act are comp comprehensively and completely laid ns of ly laid down under the provisions of the Act Act, and this Court would not in any n the in any manner cause hindrance in the disposal posal of the proceedings.

10. The wri he writ petition cannot be entertained re so ained for the said purposes, more so when pr prima facie the show cause no e notice specifically reflects the allegatio egations which the tax authorities fee ies feel to reflect of a fraud having been com en committed by the petitioner. The ca The case and facts of HCL Infotech Ltd. (sup (supra) are found to be different nd it ferent from the present case and it cannot be nnot be said that the notice does not re not reflect the allegations.

11. Writ Pe rit Petition is found to be wholly mis lly misconceived and is accordingly dismisse missed. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 24, 202 Mohit goyal , 2024

1. Whether 2. Whether ther speaking/reasoned? ther reportable? Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document