High Court · 2025

indicated in the writ petition and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. A look at the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act would reveal that on point no. 4, the indications were made that as per the balance sheet, there were sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,15,36,270/-, based on which the petitioner was required to produce the ledger account else, it was indicated that action in accordance with law would be taken.

12. Similarly, on point no. 10, based on the material available on portal, for Bill to Ship to transactions, the petitioner was required to produce details of invoices/Eway bills and further produce Eway bills in relation to tax invoices pertaining to the inward supply else, it was indicated that action accordance with law would be taken.

13. As noticed herein before, on the said aspects pertaining to point no. 4 and point no. 10, no response was given and objection was raised pertaining to the power to seek documents/information. The Assistant Commissioner by his determination made under Section 73(9) of the Act, dealt with the said aspects and raised demand.

14. Admittedly, despite specific demand raised pertaining to the documents/information as noticed herein before, nothing was produced and the same resulted in passing of the order impugned.

15. As the show cause notice was specific pertaining to the discrepancies noticed and had provided opportunity to produce documents, non quantification of the demand in the show cause notice and ultimately raising the demand while passing the order, cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch as once the discrepancy pertaining to the amount was pointed out, subject to production of documents, the determination made would always be treated as forming part of the notice.

16. The plea sought to be raised that under Section 73 of the Act, no documents can be determined, is ex-facie baseless. If the plea as sought is accepted, the indication made in point no. 4 pertaining to sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,15,36,270/- without seeking further opportunities if the demand was raised, the same would have been in violation of principles of nature justice and the very fact that the petitioner choose not to supply the requisite material, essentially is an admission regarding the discrepancy as pointed out in the notice and, therefore, it cannot be said that either the documents cannot be demanded or on failure to produce documents, demand cannot be raised.

17. In view of above, both the pleas sought to be raised based on scope of Section 73 of the Act and violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, cannot be countenanced.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions on the merit of the determination made on point no. 4 and 10 in the order impugned, for the said purpose the petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent. Not a word has been indicated in the petition as to how the available remedy under Section 107 of the Act is not efficacious.

19. In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate the issue on merits before the appellate forum.

20. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the demand made and the submissions sought to be made by the petitioner on merits. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

indicated in the writ petition and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. A look at the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act would reveal that on point no. 4, the indications were made that as per the balance sheet, there were sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,15,36,270/-, based on which the petitioner was required to produce the ledger account else, it was indicated that action in accordance with law would be taken.

12. Similarly, on point no. 10, based on the material available on portal, for Bill to Ship to transactions, the petitioner was required to produce details of invoices/Eway bills and further produce Eway bills in relation to tax invoices pertaining to the inward supply else, it was indicated that action accordance with law would be taken.

13. As noticed herein before, on the said aspects pertaining to point no. 4 and point no. 10, no response was given and objection was raised pertaining to the power to seek documents/information. The Assistant Commissioner by his determination made under Section 73(9) of the Act, dealt with the said aspects and raised demand.

14. Admittedly, despite specific demand raised pertaining to the documents/information as noticed herein before, nothing was produced and the same resulted in passing of the order impugned.

15. As the show cause notice was specific pertaining to the discrepancies noticed and had provided opportunity to produce documents, non quantification of the demand in the show cause notice and ultimately raising the demand while passing the order, cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch as once the discrepancy pertaining to the amount was pointed out, subject to production of documents, the determination made would always be treated as forming part of the notice.

16. The plea sought to be raised that under Section 73 of the Act, no documents can be determined, is ex-facie baseless. If the plea as sought is accepted, the indication made in point no. 4 pertaining to sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,15,36,270/- without seeking further opportunities if the demand was raised, the same would have been in violation of principles of nature justice and the very fact that the petitioner choose not to supply the requisite material, essentially is an admission regarding the discrepancy as pointed out in the notice and, therefore, it cannot be said that either the documents cannot be demanded or on failure to produce documents, demand cannot be raised.

17. In view of above, both the pleas sought to be raised based on scope of Section 73 of the Act and violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, cannot be countenanced.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions on the merit of the determination made on point no. 4 and 10 in the order impugned, for the said purpose the petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent. Not a word has been indicated in the petition as to how the available remedy under Section 107 of the Act is not efficacious.

19. In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate the issue on merits before the appellate forum.

20. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the demand made and the submissions sought to be made by the petitioner on merits. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad