M/S Prateek Sales Associates vs The Joint Commissioner (Appeal)
2022 Latest Caselaw 1534 Chatt

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      Order Sheet
                                   WPT No. 47 of 2022
         M/s Prateek Sales Associates Versus The Joint Commissioner (appeal)

                                WPT/57/2022,WPT/63/2022


24.03.2022           Shri Ravi Holani and Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel for the

             petitioner.


                     Ms Ruchi Nagar, PL for the State.


                     Learned counsel for the petitioner/company submits that

             petitioner is registered under Central Goods and Services Act, 2017

             (for short,'GST Act'). Company purchased goods from registered

             dealer of Odisha and availed Input tax credit. Subsequently, notice

             under Section 74 of the GST Act was issued primarily on the ground

             that purchase invoice was bogus. Petitioner had submitted detailed

             reply    which was not considered in proper       manner     by the

             adjudicating authority and passed order Annexure P5, imposing

             liability of tax to the tune of Rs.1,38,23,264/- and penalty of same

             amount. Order of executing authority was put to challenge before

             the appellate authority, who upon minute considering of records,

             came to conclusion that purchase invoices, transportation bilty, E-

             way bill is enclosed along with tax assessment proceedings which

             shows that the goods were transported from the seller dealer to
                                                     Wpt 47,63,57 of 2022
                              2

purchase dealer ie the petitioner.      The seller dealer was also

registered with GST till March 2019, whereas, goods were purchased

in between April 2018 to March 2019.        He contended that seller

dealer of Odisha also submitted their returns of that relevant period

with department. But after recording aforementioned finding, further

considered from the return submitted by seller traders of Odisha, it is

not appearing that they have deposited tax liability in cash, but have

only generated the bill. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that said finding of appellate authority, is beyond terms of notice

issued to petitioner under Section 74 of the GST Act.         Appellate

authority once came to conclusion that petitioner has purchased

goods which were also transported from registered seller dealer, and

the dealer of Odisha is not bogus, no tax liability can be imposed

upon petitioner. He further contended that after passing of order by

appellate authority, petitioner has submitted an application under

Section 161 of GST Act for rectifying the error, raising all grounds

supported by judgments of High Court and Supreme Court on the

issue but that was not considered only on the ground that as there

was no arithmetic or clerical error in the order passed by the

appellate authority. The scope of Section 161 of the GST Act is

much wider. He also contended that interim relief may be granted to

petitioner as respondent authorities have seized bank account of

Wpt 47,63,57 of 2022

petitioner /firm.

Ms Ruchi Nagar, learned State counsel submits that

respondent/department had issued alert notice mentioning name of

Bogus registered dealers in which name of two seller dealers of

Odisha from whom petitioner allegedly purchased goods also finds

place. She may be granted two weeks' time to file reply to petition as

well as application for grant of interim relief.

With consent of both the parties, list this case along with

connected matters on 20th April, 2022.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

padma