The Rajasthan High Court stayed recovery as the payment was made through the banking channel.
The counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the authority, while passing the order dated 16th August, 2023, has only looked at form GSTR – 2A of the supplier and has not taken into consideration the plea, raised by the petitioner, as reflected in the response, regarding having paid the amount to the supplier through banking channel.
Submissions have been made that Calcutta High Court in Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Ballygunge Charge & Ors., decided on 02nd August, 2023, in similar circumstances, has come to the conclusion that without following the norms wherein press release has been issued by the respondents requiring to establish the fact about missing dealer, closer of business by the supplier or supplier not having adequate asset, could not have passed the order impugned.
A Division Bench of Justices Ashuthosh Kumar and Arun Bhansali observed that “In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order impugned, passed by the authority, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice of the stay application as well. As the respondents are represented through their counsel, notice need not to be issued. The counsel for the respondents are directed to file reply to the petition on or before the next date of hearing.”
“In the meanwhile and till further order, further recovery from the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 16th August, 2023 shall remain stayed. As interim order, in favour of the petitioner, has been passed in the presence of learned counsel for the respondents, they would be free to file an application seeking vacation of interim order after filing reply to the petition” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
