JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant application has been preferred for the following reliefs:- (i) For a declaration thereby declaring that input tax credit amounting to Rs.26,62,041.24 availed by the petitioner under the Pre-Goods and Services Tax regime and rolled over to the Goods and Services Tax regime is proper and disallowance of the same by the respondent No.4 is arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdisction and violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. (ii) For quashing and setting aside DRC-07 dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent No.4 raising a demand of Rs.35,13,894.43 issued without passing of adjudication order and in violation of Principle of natural justice. (iii) For a quashing and setting aside show cause notice being reference no.1519 dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure-2) being vague in nature as it does not fulfill the ingredients of proper show cause notice and is issued in excess of its jurisdiction. (iv) For refund of an amount of Rs.19,08,880/- and/or re-crediting the said amount in Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated in this application is that the Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of Iron and Steel within the state of Jharkhand. For the purpose of said trading the Petitioner purchases Iron and Steel from the market upon payment of tax, being in the nature of Input Tax. As per the provision of the then JVAT Act, the Petitioner was entitled for adjustment of the Input Tax paid by him at the time of purchase of the good from its Output Tax Liability and if any excess claim for Input Tax remains, the same can be carried forward to the subsequent period. From 1st July, 2017 the Government of India brought all together a new Act governing the tax laws by clubbing the then existing laws. The Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act deals with transitional provisions, allowing the dealers to transit the excess Input Tax if any during the VAT regime to the GST regime being Section 140 of the JGST Act subject to the rider that the credit of the value added tax/Input tax be carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed its quarterly return (Annexure-1) for the period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 carrying forward excess Input tax amounting to Rs.26,81,541/- to the next period after adjustment from its Output Tax Liability. Pursuant to the provision of Section 140 of the JGST Act read with Rule 117 of the JGST Rules, petitioner filed Form GST TRAN-1 within the prescribed time, transiting an amount of Rs.26,81,541/- from the JVAT regime to GST regime. The said FORM GST TRAN-1 was duly accepted by the Respondent GST department and an amount of Rs.26,81,541/- was reflected in the electronic credit ledger of the Petitioner. 3. Suddenly on 21.07.2018, the Petitioner was in receipt of FORM GST DRC-01 (Annexure-1) being a “Summary of Show Cause Notice” for initiating a proceeding u/s 73, 74, 122, 132(1)(d), 132(1)(a) of the JGST Act read with CGST Act observing therein that the Petitioner has not apportioned Input Tax Credit as per the provisions of section 18(8)(xviii) of the JVAT Act read with Rule 26 of the JVAT Rules, 2006 and notification no. LG35/2015-99, LG35/2015-100, dated 23.09.2015 and thus not entitled for Input Tax Credit. The case of the petitioner is that from the Summary of Show Cause Notice, it is evident that the same is not in a proper format as the date, time and venue; nothing is mentioned therein, nor the irrelevant sections have been struck down. 4. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner was in receipt of FORM GST DRC-07 “Summary of the Order” dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure-3) imposing tax to the tune of Rs.35,13,894.43 being inclusive of penalty and interest. Immediately on 16.11.2018, the petitioner applied for the entire order-sheet and for the copy of adjudication order on the basis of which FORM GST DRC-07 has been issued. However, till date the Petitioner has not been provided with any adjudication order and has been informed that no adjudication order has been passed in the present matter. The said fact is also admitted by the Respondent department in their Counter Affidavit at para-15. Further, on 19.01.2021 an amount of Rs.19,08,880/- has been suo-moto debited from the credit ledger of the Petitioner. 5. Ms. The said fact is also admitted by the Respondent department in their Counter Affidavit at para-15. Further, on 19.01.2021 an amount of Rs.19,08,880/- has been suo-moto debited from the credit ledger of the Petitioner. 5. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of arguments has raised following issues:- (i) The respondent GST department is not correct in assuming jurisdiction and initiating a proceeding u/s 73/74 of the JGST Act against transition of Input Tax Credit from JVAT regime to GST regime, on the alleged ground that ITC is inadmissible under the JVAT Act. (ii) The entire proceeding is void-ab-initio since no detailed Show Cause Notice has ever been issued by the Respondent department and that straightaway FORM GST DRC-01 was issued being “Summary of Show Cause Notice”. Moreover, the essential ingredient of the Show Cause Notice is missing thereby. (iii) The entire proceeding is hit by the Principles of Natural Justice, as no opportunity was ever granted to the Petitioner before fastening liability upon the Petitioner by straightaway issuing FORM GST DRC-07 and that no adjudication order has ever been passed, as duly admitted by the Respondent GST department in their Counter Affidavit at para-15. In support of her contention she relied upon the following judgments: - (a) Usha Martin Limited case being W.P.(T) No.3055 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022. (b) M/s NKAS Services Private Limited v State of Jharkhand &Ors. being W.P.(T) no.2444 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 reported in 2021-VIL-732-Jhr. (c) M/s Godavari Commodities Ltd. being W.P.(T) no. 3908 of 2020 dated 18.04.2022. 6. On merits of the case, Ms. Sinha refer the grounds for issuance of Summary of Show Cause Notice, which is quoted herein below:- “You have not apportioned ITC as per provisions of section 18(8)(xviii) of JVAT-2005,r.w. Rule 26 of Jharkhand Value Added Rules, 2016 and Notification no. LG35/2015-99, LG35/2015-100 dated 23.09.2015. Apportioning your ITC as per the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax 2005 and corresponding Rules 2006 your ITC remains such. Year ITC Availed ITC Apportioned ITC Allowable 2015-16 86,05,424.01 16,44,716.88 77,11,421.52 2016-17 1,05,07,412.04 21,35,590.187 92,24,463.562 2017-18 47,43,509.05 10,08,361.99 41,39,183.78 It has been submitted that section 18(8)(xviii) of the JVAT Act is applicable to dealers who are engaged in manufacturing process, whereas it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is engaged in trading business, who resales Iron and Steel goods and thus section 18(8)(xviii) is not applicable upon the Petitioner. For ready reference section 18(8)(xviii) is quoted herein below:- “Section 18(8)-No input tax credit under sub-Section (1) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer- Section 18(8)(xviii) -In respect of goods consumed or burnt up in course of manufacturing process and are not transferred into or existent in the finished product whether as goods or in any other form.” She contended that the Respondent in its Counter Affidavit at para 17 has also admitted the fact that the Petitioner is a trader and not a manufacturer and thus has tried to escape from its wrong by stating that inadvertently instead of mentioning 18(8)(ii) has wrongly typed 18(8)(xviii), being a typographical error. It has been submitted that it is a settled principle of law that one cannot go beyond the Show Cause Notice and merely by stating that it is typographical error the wrong provision under which Show Cause Notice has been issued cannot be cured. It will change the very nature of show cause notice. It is further stated and submitted that the notification on which the Respondent department has relied upon in the Summary of Show Cause Notice for the period 2015-16 & 2016-17 is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ramkrishna Forgings Limited being W.P.(T) no. 134 of 2016 vide order dated 29.01.2020 at para 54(V) has held that in view of the fact that Rule 26(11A) has been declared to be prospective in operation i.e. with effect from 17.02.2017, it is hereby declared that for the period 23.09.2015 to 16.02.2017 proviso inserted to clause (ii) and clause (iii) of sub-section 4 of section 18 of the JVAT Act cannot be given effect to in absence of any machinery provisions and no forfeiture of Input tax credit shall be given effect to during the period 23.09.2015 to 16.02.2016. The aforesaid decision passed in Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLA (C) no. 1982 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.09.2021 has agreed with the view of this Hon’ble Court and has declined to interfere with the findings of this Court. 7. Mr. The aforesaid decision passed in Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLA (C) no. 1982 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.09.2021 has agreed with the view of this Hon’ble Court and has declined to interfere with the findings of this Court. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned AAG-III appearing for the respondents submits that the writ is not maintainable as the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of JGST Act, 2017 and he can agitate the issue on non-providing of the order No.1681 dated 23.08.2018 before the Appellate Authority. He further submits that the petitioner filed Form GST TRAN-1 on 26.08.2017 for an amount of Rs.26,62,041.24/- The said Form GST TRAN-1 was scrutinized by the concerned Assessing Authority and finding certain discrepancies in the said From-TRAN-1, issued a Form GST ASMT-10 having reference no.935 dated 04.07.2018 to the petitioner. The Form GST ASMT-10 categorically specified that the petitioner had not apportioned its ITC as per provision, as such, the petitioner was requested to explain the discrepancies by 19.07.2018. Mr. Anand further submits that despite issuance of above Form GST ASMT-10 dated 04.07.2018, the petitioner did not respond or submitted any explanation for it. The concerned authority, therefore issued Form GST DRC-01 having reference No.1519 dated 21.07.2018 under Rule 142(1) of the JGST Act in terms of Section 121 of the JGST Rule and after noting that amount credited under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 117 needs verification, as such the proceeding under Section 73 of the JGST Act was initiated and accordingly the above Form GST DRC-01 was issued to the petitioner. He further submits that Form GST DRC-01 provided the summary of the ‘Show Cause’ and the ground for initiation of proceeding under Section 73, accordingly, the petitioner was asked to produce evidences to justify the claim made in Form GST TRAN-1 under Section 140(2) read with Rule 117 (2)(a) read with Section 140(5) read with Rule 117 (2)(c). He contended that said Form GST DRC-01 mentioned about the notification LG-35/2015-99 and its translated version in LG-35/2015-100 and having reference to same, the DRC-01 was issued. He contended that said Form GST DRC-01 mentioned about the notification LG-35/2015-99 and its translated version in LG-35/2015-100 and having reference to same, the DRC-01 was issued. He further submits that so far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said judgments are also not applicable in this case and he reiterates that the petitioner should avail the opportunity of appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein. So far as issue no.(i) is concerned; the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Usha Martin Limited being W.P.(T) No.3055 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022, wherein this Court at para 20,21,22 has held as under :- 20. It is consequent to such a novel legislation that both the Centre and the States enacted their G.S.T. laws. However, as is obvious, the new regime had to make provisions for the transactions which remained inchoate under the existing law. It is also a well settled legal position that on account of new legislation the implementation of the G.S.T. regime could not be left to a realm of uncertainty. For a violation under the existing law, parallel proceedings could not be conducted under the existing law at the behest of jurisdictional officer and at the same time under the new law at the instance of another jurisdictional officer of the G.S.T. Act. It is in this conceptual background that the purport and construction of the repeal and saving provisions under Section 174 of the C.G.S.T. Act is to be understood. The existing Act, such as the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957), The Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles Act, 1978 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were repealed under Subsection (1) of Section 174. The existing Act, such as the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957), The Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles Act, 1978 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were repealed under Subsection (1) of Section 174. However, the legislature provided that the repeal of the said Acts and the amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent mentioned in sub section (1) or section 173 shall not (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time of such amendment or repeal; or (b) affect the previous operation of amended Act or repealed Acts or and orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the amended Act or repealed Acts or orders under such repealed or amended Acts. Sub clause (e) of subsection 2 of Section 174 is relevant for purposes of the present case which are again reproduced hereunder: “(e) affect any investigation, inquiry, verification (including scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and any other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy in respect of any such duty, tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment, as aforesaid, and any such investigation, inquiry, verification (including scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, forfeiture or punishment may be levied or imposed as if these Acts had not been so amended or repealed.” 21. It provides that the repeal of the existing laws shall not affect any investigation, inquiry, verification (including Scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and any other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy in respect of any such duty, tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any such investigation, inquiry, verification (including scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, forfeiture or punishment may be levied or imposed as if these Acts had not been so amended or repealed. In substance, investigations, inquiry, verification, assessment proceedings, adjudication proceedings, legal proceedings which were for recovery of arrears or remedy in respect of any such duty or tax etc., which were pending or such other legal proceedings or inchoate rights which were in existence on the appointed day, for them legal proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced as if these Acts had not been so amended or repealed. To decide whether any particular transaction is affected by the repeal of an Act, it is necessary to ascertain whether the transaction in question was completed when the Act was repealed. The present repeal and saving clause expressly engrafts that notwithstanding the repealing Act the repeal shall not affect any right or liability acquired accrued or incurred……… 22. Therefore, it is clear that the repeal of the existing laws upon coming of the G.S.T. law regime did not leave a vacuum as to past transactions which were not closed. The repeal and saving clause (e) under Section 174(1) of the C.G.S.T. Act allowed such legal proceedings to be instituted in respect of inchoate rights except rights under transactions which were past and closed………….. 9. As a matter of fact, section 174 of the JGST Act deals with repeal and saving provision, wherein the JVAT Act, 2005, except in respect of goods included in Entry 54 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, Jharkhand Entertainment Tax Act, 2012, Jharkhand Advertisement Tax Act, Jharkhand Entry Tax on consumption or use of goods Act, 2011 were repealed. However, section 174(2)(e), saves any investigation, inquiry, verification, assessment, adjudication and any other legal proceedings as if these Acts have not so amended or repealed. Thus, the GST authorities are incorrect in assuming jurisdiction and initiating a proceeding under the provision of the JGST Act alleging therein that the Input Tax Credit so transited from the pre-GST regime is inadmissible under the JVAT regime. 10. So far as issue no. (ii) is concerned; it is evident from records that the Respondent department without issuing any detailed Show Cause Notice has proceeded with the matter by merely issuing a “Summary of Show Cause Notice” being FORM GST DRC-01 dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure-2). Thus, the very initiation of the adjudication proceeding without issuance of detail Show Cause Notice is void ab initio and any consequential adjudication order passed thereto is non-est in the eyes of law. Thus, the very initiation of the adjudication proceeding without issuance of detail Show Cause Notice is void ab initio and any consequential adjudication order passed thereto is non-est in the eyes of law. The aforesaid issue has already been settled by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s NKAS Services Private Limited v State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.(T) no.2444 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021) reported in 2021-VIL-732-Jhr in Para- 13 and 14, wherein this Court has held that the adjudication order is non-est in the eyes of law, as the same has been passed without issuance of proper Show Cause Notice and thus amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The aforesaid issue was further affirmed and adjudicated by this Court in the case of M/s Godavari Commodities Ltd. being W.P.(T) no. 3908 of 2020 dated 18.04.2022, wherein the specific case of the Petitioner was that no Show Cause Notice was ever issued to the Petitioner and even in the Summary of Show Cause Notice no timeline was provided as to when the Petitioner is to submit its reply. This Court in the facts of the said case has quashed and set aside the summary of Show Cause Notices and Summary of order being FORM GST DRC-07, by observing therein that the department in stark disregard to the mandatory provision of the GST Act and well-known procedure for conduct of proceeding have been completely disregarded. Reference may ay be made to para 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 & 23 of the aforesaid judgment. In the case at hand, FORM GST DRC-01 (Annexure-2) in question has been issued without specifying any date of hearing nor the relevant provisions have been struck down for the reason that the Show Cause Notice has been issued u/s 73 & 74 both. The purpose of Section 73 and 74 of the JGST Act are entirely different from each other and the proceedings under either of the section can be initiated as the foundational facts do suggest. Thus, FORM GST DRC-01 being ‘Summary of Show Cause Notice” does not constitute a proper Show Cause Notice as the mandatory ingredients are absent. Thus, on this score alone, the impugned show-cause notice is fit to be quashed. 11. So far as issue no. Thus, FORM GST DRC-01 being ‘Summary of Show Cause Notice” does not constitute a proper Show Cause Notice as the mandatory ingredients are absent. Thus, on this score alone, the impugned show-cause notice is fit to be quashed. 11. So far as issue no. (iii) is concerned, it is evident that in the present case no adjudication order has been passed by Respondent authority and they have straightaway proceeded to issue FORM GST DRC-07 being ‘summary of order’ in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the GST Act and thus the entire proceeding is non-est in the eyes of law. The fact that no adjudication order has been passed in the present matter has duly been accepted by the Respondent authority in their Counter Affidavit at para 15. It is reiterated that no opportunity of hearing at any stage has ever been granted to the Petitioner being utter disregard to the section 75(4) of the JGST Act. Thus, the present case is also hit by violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 12. Since we are satisfied by all the three issues raised by the Assessee in their favour, we refrain our-self from giving any observation on merits of the case which has been advanced by Ms. Sinha. We further hold that this writ application is maintainable as the respondent authority has not complied the basic ingredients of principles of Natural Justice and also the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to herein above. 13. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned show cause notice being reference no.1519 dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure-2) & the DRC-07 dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure-3), is hereby quashed and set-aside. The Respondents are further directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,08,880/- which has been illegally deducted and/or re-credit the said amount in Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner within a period of ten weeks along with the statutory interest from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, the Respondent would be at liberty to reinitiate any proceedings against the Assessee, if so advised or if law so permits. However, the amount which has already been deducted illegally; shall be refunded/credited within the period stipulated herein above. 14. With the above direction and observation, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated herein above. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed.