^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

MUMBAI BRAHAMAPUTRA INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Parag Kothari.

Res. Counsel

Anirban Ray

T.m. Siddiqui

Tanoy Chakraborty

Petitioner / Applicant	MUMBAI BRAHAMAPUTRA INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Jul 4, 2024
Order No.	W. P. A 12484 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10379
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the adjudication order passed under Section 73 (9) of the West Bengal GST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 29th January, 2024. 2. It is a petitioners’ case that on 24th November, 2023, the petitioner no. 1 was served a show-cause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act highlighting the discrepancies. 3. From the aforesaid show-cause notice, it would transpire that the petitioner no. 1 was primarily required to show cause for having availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in excess as also as regards the proposal for reverse of ITC. 4. In response to the same, the petitioner no. 1 had in its reply to the show-cause by communication in writing dated 18th November, 2023, inter alia, claimed that the petitioner no. 1 is only responsible for the book of accounts, returns filed by the petitioner no. 1 and cannot be called upon to pay the tax, if any, in the even....