There is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the communication which only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Demand Notice – The petitioner challenged the communications issued by the Additional Assistant Director DGGI /R1 dated 15.07.2020 & 18.07.2020. The respondent submitted that the investigation is under progress, this office vide letters dated 15.07.2020 and 20.08.2020, requested the petitioners to intimate the details of differential GST payment mad in view of the voluntary statement dated 22.01.2020 of DGM (Finance). After completion of investigation, a demand notice under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act, 2017 will be issued by the proper officer. The court observed that impugned communication only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner and any further action in continuance thereof will be taken in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court closed the petition as there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the impugned communication itself.
There is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the communication which only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Demand Notice – The petitioner challenged the communications issued by the Additional Assistant Director DGGI /R1 dated 15.07.2020 & 18.07.2020. The respondent submitted that the investigation is under progress, this office vide letters dated 15.07.2020 and 20.08.2020, requested the petitioners to intimate the details of differential GST payment mad in view of the voluntary statement dated 22.01.2020 of DGM (Finance). After completion of investigation, a demand notice under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act, 2017 will be issued by the proper officer. The court observed that impugned communication only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner and any further action in continuance thereof will be taken in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court closed the petition as there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the impugned communication itself.