Page 97 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] INDRIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. ADDL. COMMR., AUDIT-II 55
on the common portal. Sufficient guidance is provided in the definition of tech-
nical difficulty in Rule 117(1A). Examining the system log to ascertain the exist-
ence of technical difficulties on the common portal for registered persons, is not
arbitrary, nor does it lead to a fettering of discretion by the authorities. Those
registered persons who could not submit the declaration by the due date because
of technical difficulties on the common portal as can be evidenced from the sys-
tem logs are given an extension on the recommendation of the Council. Where
no such evidence is forthcoming, no recommendation is made. In the Petitioner’s
case, no such proof emerges and, therefore, no direction as sought for can be is-
sued.
77. As a result, the Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

_______

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 55 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, J.
INDRIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Versus
ADDL. COMMR., AUDIT-II
ADDL. COMMR., AUDIT-II COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI
Writ Petition No. 34399 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 35074 of 2019,
decided on 31-1-2020
Adjudication - Pre-SCN consultations - In terms of earlier interim
orders dated 16-12-2019, pre-consultations have already taken place between
assessing officer and petitioner on all points raised in SCN - In view of fact
that no amicable resolution has come out these consultations, adjudication
process in respect of SCN is restored - Petitioner directed to file reply to SCN
within two weeks for enabling adjudicating authority to adjudicate matter af-
ter hearing petitioner - However, para 11 of SCN referring to discussion with
Audit Commissioner is set aside as same is not envisaged - Section 75 of Cen-
tral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Petition disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.A. Mudi Mannan, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing
Counsel, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dated 23-10-
2019 on the point that the procedure set out for adjudication/assessment has not
been followed, insofar as there is no pre-consultative process that has been fol-
lowed in this case.
2. When the matter had come up for admission, after having heard Mr.
M.A. Mudi Mannan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Hema Mu-
ralikrishnan, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, the following
order was passed on 16-12-2019 :

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  97