J.S.B. Trading Co. Vs State of Punjab And Another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that confirming demand and initiating liability under section 74(5) of the CGST Act liable to be set aside since the same was already dropped vide proceedings under section 61(2) of the CGST Act.
Facts- The petitioner is dealing in the business of sale and purchase of iron scrap. A notice dated 05.09.2022 u/s. 61 of Punjab GST/CGST Act, 2017 was issued for scrutiny of the return by the Proper Officer to explain about the ITC claimed on the purchases, alleging that during the period 2017-18, the firm had claimed ITC from four different firms, whose registration had already been cancelled.
The petitioner submitted its reply was intimated, vide GST ASMT-12 on 28.02.2023 that their reply had been found to be satisfactory, and no further action is required to be taken in the matter. At the same time, on 23.02.2023, an intimation under Rule 142 (1) (A) in Form GST DRC 01A was issued for FY 2017-18, wherein it was mentioned that reply to the notice u/s. 61 in Form ASMT-10 of GST Act, 2017 was not found to be satisfactory and the demand was, therefore, raised for a sum of Rs.17,96,557/-.
