Home » Laws » GST Case Laws » M/s B.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR , DIRECTORATE OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

M/s B.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR , DIRECTORATE OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

High Court, Rajasthan
Pankaj Bhandari, Justice & Shubha Mehta, Justice

M/s B.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR , DIRECTORATE OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE & ORS.

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2792/2024 dated 30.04.2024

Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 39, 44, 45, 46, 62, 70, 73 & 74
Decision : In favour of revenue

Violation of principles of natural justice –In the present case, the primary contention of petitioner is that provisions of Section 46 of the Act was not complied with and notice was not given to the petitioner who was a registered person – Held That – Since there is non-obstante clause under Section 62 of the Act, no proceedings could have taken place under Section 74 of the Act. It is not required to accept the said arguments for the very reason that this is not a case where the registered person failed to furnish the return rather, the petitioner has filed the NIL return. Therefore, there was no requirement to give notice to the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. The present is a case where search and seizure had taken placed under Chapter XIV of the Act and in pursuance of search and seizure, summons were given under Section 70 of the Act to the petitioner to give evidence. Consequently, thereupon the evidence of petitioner was recorded and after recording of evidence, petitioner was afforded three opportunities of personal hearing and thereafter, the present assessment order has been passed – there are no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner himself has admitted his GST liability in evidence given by him and the person who has himself given evidence, cannot be permitted to be cross-examined by his own counsel.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Jatin Harjai with Mohit Kr. Soni

Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.

🔒 Premium Content

Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.

Become Premium Member