![]()
Case Summary: M/S Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
State Tax
Case No: R/Special
Civil Application No. 16857 of 2022
Order Date:15/12/2022
Court Name: High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Summary of the Case: M/S
Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd. challenged the actions of the Commissioner of State
Tax regarding a demand notice for reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on exempted
supplies under Section 17(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the
demand and subsequent actions were unjust and sought to quash the order and
grant relief.
Brief Facts of the Case:
·
M/S Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd., engaged in
trading cotton products, received a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the
CGST Act.
·
The notice demanded a reversal of ITC
related to exempt supplies, totaling ₹36,15,696 with interest.
·
The petitioner requested a 30-day
adjournment but was granted 15 days, failing to file a response within this
period.
·
A search was conducted at the petitioner's
premises, and ITC was reversed for previous years.
·
The petitioner believed the matter was
resolved until bank accounts were debited for the demanded amount.
Submission by Petitioner:
·
The petitioner argued that the demand
notice and subsequent recovery actions violated principles of natural justice.
·
They claimed the lack of opportunity for a
proper hearing and the personal hardships in adhering to the deadlines.
·
They sought the quashing of the demand
order and a fresh adjudication with due hearing.
Submission by
Respondent:
·
The respondent argued that the petitioner
was given an adequate opportunity to respond and appear for a hearing.
·
They contended that the actions taken were
compliant with legal requirements and justified by the petitioner's failure to
respond timely.
Findings and Decision:
·
The court acknowledged that the petitioner
was granted an adjournment and an opportunity for a personal hearing, which
they failed to utilize.
·
However, the court recognized the
petitioner's right to appeal and decided to allow the petitioner to challenge
the order before the Appellate Authority.
·
The court directed the respondent to
refrain from further coercive actions and permitted the petitioner to operate
their bank account pending the appeal.
Conclusion: The
court allowed the petitioner to appeal the demand order despite missing the
initial deadline, ensuring that the appeal process would proceed without
prejudice from earlier procedural issues.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
