|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 11438 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery notices and bank attachment orders - Validity of assessment order - No opportunity of being heard - discrepancies between the GSTR 3B return and the GSTR 2B return - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the tax liability and interest and penalty was levied in respect thereof. By taking into account the fact that about 50% of the tax liability was recovered by making an appropriation from the petitioner's bank account, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Solely for that reason, the impugned order calls for interference.
Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by annexing all relevant documents. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. In view of the assessment order being quashed, the bank attachment stands raised.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.
-
2024 (4) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment order - demand of GST - petitioner asserts that an error was committed by entering the same invoice number in multiple e-way bills - No reasons for rejecting petitioner's reply - HELD THAT:- From the petitioner's reply dated 28.08.2023, it appears that the petitioner conceded that an inadvertent error was made by including the same invoice number under multiple e-way bills. The petitioner also attached the relevant bill copies with such reply.
The findings recorded in the impugned order discloses that the reply of the petitioner was noticed, but the reasons for rejecting such reply and, in particular, the documents annexed thereto, do not find place in the impugned order. For such reason, the impugned order calls for interference.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for re-consideration. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
W.P is disposed of on the above terms - Consequently, W.M.P is closed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Demand of GST - No personal hearing as required under Section 75(5) - Bank account has been frozen - discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 - ASMT-10 order passed - intimation issued u/s 73 - HELD THAT:- Opportunity of hearing is a basic requirement before passing any adverse order. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not availed that opportunity of personal hearing provided through portal. Since the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, this Court is inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and grant an order of interim stay. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that instead of granting an interim order, the petitioner can be provided one more opportunity and the date can be fixed by this Court.
For the sole purpose to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioner, without expecting any further notice from the 1st respondent, shall appear before the 1st respondent on 27.03.2024 and shall provide his explanation, if any. The 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass a fresh order.
In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - show cause notice issued through online portal - Petitioner not acquainted with the advance technology of following the notices - on-line portal and uploading the notices through on-line portal - No opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has been passed after issuing notice in Form ASMT-10 dated 13.05.2022 and notice in Form DRC 01A dated 05.11.2022 and notice in Form DRC 01 dated 03.12.2022. Admittedly, all these notices were uploaded only through the portal. Though Section 169(d) of TNGST Act 2017, enables the respondent to issue notice through the common portal, other modes are also made available to the respondent under Section 169 of the TNGST Act 2017. In this case, the petitioner is a Timber Trader. He is not an educated person and he is not acquainted in following the notices uploaded through the common portal.
Thus, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 23.02.2023 and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall proceed with the assessment and pass orders afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 04.03.2024 (Monday) along with the required documents. In order to avoid such a situation, the respondent shall also find out the possibility of issuing the notices through other modes, which are also made available u/s 169 of the TNGST Act 2017.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 23 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Refund of pre-deposit alongwith interest - CIRP - Approval of Resolution Plan under IBC - wrongful availment of CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation in holding that the Revenue in the impugned order has completely misdirected itself in law and has completely misconstrued the orders passed by the Ld. NCLT. The purport of the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Ld. NCLT which has been relied by the Revenue to reject the claim of the Petitioner that “no persons will claim any dues including the statutory dues owed to Central, State Government or any local authority” is rather applicable qua the claims of the Revenue against the Petitioner, and does not in any manner imply that the pre-deposit made by the Petitioner is not to be refunded; more so, when the very tax liability has stood extinguished.
Further, if at all the Revenue retains the pre-deposits made by the Petitioner; the same would amount to unjust enrichment since the very tax liability which was subject matter of appeals, stood extinguished.
So far as stand of the Revenue that Refund application of Petitioner was examined as per Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014; in this regard, it is observed that the said circular is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case and it is of a period prior to the enactment of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Moreover, there is no reference to the said circular in the impugned order.
In the case of Rainbow Papers [2022 (9) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT], the Revenue not only filed its claims before the resolution professional and also had challenged the resolution plan before the NCLT. However, in the instant case, there was neither any claim filed by the Revenue before the resolution professional nor there was any challenge by the Revenue to the resolution plan or any other orders passed by the NCLT. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal [2023 (11) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT], a review was filed against the judgment in Rainbow Papers and the same was dismissed.
The order is hereby, quashed and set aside. The Respondent-Revenue is directed to refund the aforesaid pre-deposit amount of Rs. 2,06,31,698/- to the Petitioner along with applicable statutory interest - the instant writ application is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 22 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMIL NADU
Classification of treated water - what is the appropriate classification of the treated water that would be sold by the Applicant, after carrying out various treatment process on the effluent water purchased by them - rate of GST applicable on the said treated water - HELD THAT:- Upon going through the processes effected by the Applicant, the effluent water is subjected to micro-filtration and sand filtration process to remove suspended impurities. They have then used a series of RO units for removing minerals. In spite of the RO treatment, the TDS of the treated water is higher, which can be seen from the test report. As per the report furnished by the South India Textile Research Association (SITRA) Textile Testing and Service Centre, test report No. V2300304, dated 9-8-2023 of Sample given for testing, in the case of the Applicant, it is seen that the recovered water contains chlorides, sulphates, Bicarbonates, etc. The TDS levels of the treated water as per the test report is 272 mg/1, which clearly shows the treated water is not demineralized as per the standard norms. From the above, it is clear that treated water cannot be construed as de-mineralized water.
As discussed, treated water will not fit into Sl. No. 24 of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017. Also treated water is not demineralized water as claimed by them but water, without any special characters as indicated in the tariff entries.
Therefore, it is amply clear that, water recovered out of the effluent treatment process nothing but an ordinary water which is suitable for reuse by the dyeing and bleaching units as a solvent and as a washing, rinsing medium. Thus, it aptly fits into Sl. No. 99 of Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the Heading 2201 rather than Sl. No. 24 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the same Heading 2201.
It is observed that the process carried out by the Applicant involves conversion of effluent water into treated water to make it suitable for reuse by the member units. At the same time, the treated water cannot be put into any other usage, as the same is not completely free of impurities, bacteria and other harmful micro-organisms and chemicals.
The above facts reiterate that the ultimate intention behind the effluent treatment process is to treat the effluent water discharged by textile units to recover water, salt and other chemicals consumed during the course of dyeing and bleaching to the maximum extent possible so as to reuse the same without getting it discharged to pollute water bodies. Moreover, ZLD has been mandated by the TNPCB for all the highly polluting industries including Textile Dyeing and Bleaching industries in order to prevent pollution of River water and ground water. Therefore, it is evident that the common effluent treatment plant has been set up in order to comply with the legislative and environment regulations thereby conserving water through recovery and reuse and not to manufacture water or chemicals.
Therefore, we find that effluent treated water is eligible for exemption as per Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended vide Notification No. 7/2022-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 13th July, 2022
Therefore, The classification of treated water to be sold by the applicant is correctly classifiable as per Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The said treated water is eligible for exemption as per the notification.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1316 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Liability of Collect Tax at Source (TCS) - Exempt supplies - Section 52 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - It is contended that payment for the contract can either be settled through the Petitioner’s platform, or it can be settled directly between the buyer and seller. The Petitioner does not guarantee settlement of transactions by way of delivery of goods or payment. The Petitioner merely charges transaction fees for providing the platform to its members for the purpose of e-auction.
HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, when the Petitioner has raised an issue of the maintainability of the alleged demand on the ground that Section 52 of the CGST Act is not applicable, and more particularly considering the nature of the business and transaction involved, it would be appropriate that the adjudicating officer considers the same as preliminary issues and decide the same first in accordance with law.
This Petition is disposed off by permitting the Petitioner to raise such preliminary issues before the adjudicating officer and the same shall be taken into consideration and decided by him in accordance with law.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1315 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - irregular availment of Input Tax Credit - violation of provisions of Section 132(1) (b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail in the present case. No doubt, the respondents have levelled specific allegations against the present petitioner, yet, the criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial. Still further, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 19.04.2023 and the maximum sentence provided under the statute is five years. Still further, the case of the prosecution is based on the testimonies of official witnesses and the petitioner may not be in a position to influence the witnesses, who are to be produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be confined in jail as an under-trial for an indefinite period.
Thus, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned subject to the conditions imposed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1314 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of GST - activity of holding equity capital by the parent Company in the Petitioner - ultravires Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the parent company is M/s. Metro Cash and Carry International GmbH of which the petitioner herein i.e., M/s. Metro Cash and Carry Pvt. Ltd., is a subsidiary and merely because the parent company – M/s. Metro Cash and Carry International GmbH holds shares in its subsidiary i.e., the petitioner herein, the said circumstance cannot be classified, treated or construed as ‘supply of service’ for the purpose of GST.
Since the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in M/S. YONEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KARNATAKA, COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES BANGALORE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT 2. 8) BANGALORE [2024 (2) TMI 59 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the impugned Show Cause Notices issued are without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserves to be quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1313 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-service of notice to the Petitioner on his address or email and was only uploaded on the common portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was unable to access the Show Cause Notices or reply to the said Show Cause Notices.
The impugned orders dated 04.12.2023 which have been passed solely because petitioner had not file a reply cannot be sustained. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2023 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1312 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Demand of GST - Validity of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 - Violation of natural justice - impugned order was passed before the period of 15 days could expire and the petitioner-Firm has therefore not been given a fair opportunity to put forth its defence to SCN - Appealable order or not - HELD THAT:- In the first place, a challenge to the show-cause notice, charge memo or charge-sheet is generally not entertained in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is a sound policy in law behind this rule of non-interference that the aggrieved person should first avail of the remedy provided under the statutory regime. The impugned order dated 28th December 2023 passed by the State of Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi is appealable under section 107 of the GST Act and under section 107 of the JGST Act.
The summary of show-cause notice is dated 13th December 2023. Through this notice, the petitioner-Firm was intimated that within 15 days if it deposits the assessed amount or provides satisfactory reply the notice shall be withdrawn. Now the stand of the petitioner-Firm is that it submitted a detailed show-cause reply dated 29th December 2023 but before that the impugned order dated 28th December 2023 has been passed - The notice is dated 13th December 2023 and the petitioner-Firm itself affirms that the said notice was mailed on 16th December 2023 in FORM DRC-1.
The petitioner-Firm is required to approach the appellate authority who shall have the benefit of the records and would be in a better position to adjudicate the disputes on facts - this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition which is dismissed only on the ground that no case is made out for entertaining this petition notwithstanding the statutory regime under the JGST Act.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1311 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Taxability of Personal Guarantee and Corporate Guarantee in GST - Seeking a declaration that the activity of the holding company providing a Corporate Guarantee to a subsidiary is not in the nature of supply of services taxable under Section 9 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
List on 08.07.2024.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1310 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal - petitioner is deprived of its statutory remedy of Appeal and the corresponding benefit of sub-sections-8 & 9 of section 112 of the CGST/OGST - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is desirous of availing the statutory remedy of Appeal under the said provisions. Apparently, acknowledging the absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government of India based on the recommendation made by the G.S.T. Council, has issued Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 on 03.12.2019.
In tune with the said Removal of Difficulties Order dated 03.12.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing vide Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST Dated 18th March, 2020 has come out with the clarification in respect of appeal having regard to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal - Taking into account the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Government of India and subsequent clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Policy Wing) vide Circular No. 132/2/2020 dated 18th March, 2020, it is deemed proper in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition, subject to conditions imposed.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1309 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post-GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation in the aforesaid regard as referred in preceding paragraph of this order, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representation the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Levy of penalty equivalent to the tax - wrongful utilization of Input Tax Credit - Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act - whether the invocation of the provisions of Section 122 (1-A) of the CGST Act as also Section 137(1) and 137(2) would stand attracted in their applicability to the petitioner, so as to confer jurisdiction on respondent no. 3, to issue the impugned show cause notice against the petitioner, who is merely an employee of MLIPL and a power of attorney of Maersk? - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of section 122 clearly implies that it provides for levy of penalty for “certain offences” by taxable person. Such taxable person would render himself liable for a penalty for acts provided in clauses (i) to (xxi) of sub-section (1). Insofar as sub-section (1-A) of Section 122 is concerned, it provides that any person (who would necessarily be a taxable person), retains the benefit of the transactions covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1), and at whose instance, such transaction is conducted, “shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equal to the tax evaded or input tax credit availed of or passed on”. This necessarily implies that sub-section (1-A) applies to a taxable person, as it specifically speaks about the applicability of the provisions of clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1), with a further emphasis added by the words - This clearly depicts the intention of the legislature that a person who would fall within the purview of sub-section(1-A) of Section 122 is necessarily a taxable person as defined under section 2(107) of the CGST Act read with the provisions of section 2( 94) of the CGST Act and a person who retains the benefits of transactions covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of Section 122.
Section 122 (1-A) also cannot be attracted qua the person, in a situation when any person does not retain the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) and/or it is applicable at whose instance such transactions are conducted, could be the only person, who shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or input tax credit, wrongly availed of or passed on.
There is no material to support that any of the ingredients as specified in sub-section (1-A) of Section 122 would stand attracted so as to confer jurisdiction on respondent no. 3 to adjudicate any allegations/charges as made under sub-section (1-A) of Section 122. This is abundantly clear from the bare contents of paragraphs 20 and 5.19.1 of the show cause notice.
It is clear from the relevant contents of the show cause notice that the basic jurisdictional requirements / ingredients, are not attracted for issuance of the show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act so as to inter alia invoke Section 122 (1-A) and Section 137 against the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is ill-conceivable to read and recognize into the provisions of Section 122 and Section 137, of the CGST Act any principle of vicarious liability being attracted. There could be none. Thus, Respondent no. 3 clearly lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice in its applicability to the petitioner. Thus qua the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice is rendered bad and illegal, deserving it to be quashed and set aside.
It is highly unconscionable and disproportionate for the concerned officer of the Revenue to demand from the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3731 crores, which in fact is clearly alleged to be the liability of Maersk, as the contents of the show cause notice itself would demonstrate. The petitioner would not be incorrect in contending that the purpose of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner who is merely an employee, was designed to threaten and pressurize the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Imposition of GST on trade payables - challenge on the ground that the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and the entire trade payables of the petitioner were subject to GST - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner operates across India and the total trade payables were taken by the respondents from the financial statements of the petitioner. In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had explained that the statutory requirements with regard to availment of ITC had been fulfilled by making payments for goods or services received by the petitioner within the time limit specified in that regard. The petitioner also adverted to returns filed in Form GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B in that regard - the conclusion in the impugned order that GST is payable on the total taxable supply as per the financial statements of the petitioner appears prima facie to be untenable.
Since it was concluded earlier that the findings with regard to imposition of GST on trade payables by treating the total tax payables as taxable supplies is prima facie untenable, the petitioner shall remit 10% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to all the other heads of demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand.
The impugned order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand under all heads, except trade payables, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1275 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disregard to petitioner's reply to the intimation - it is alleged that the petitioner had not submitted documents to establish the movement of goods - HELD THAT:- The reply dated 07.05.2023 of the petitioner is on record. In such reply, the petitioner refuted the liability and enclosed copies of the invoice, weighment slips, e-way bills, ledger copy and payment details relating to the relevant supplies. The petitioner also placed on record the evidence that the said reply was uploaded along with attachments.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 14.06.2023 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by annexing all relevant documents once again.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of garnishee orders - shortfall in amount to fulfil the entire pre-deposit requirement of 30% of the disputed tax demand - HELD THAT:- As regards amounts payable as per the order in original, the documents on record disclose that the entire tax liability was discharged and all that remains is interest and penalty. As regards the order in original corresponding to W.P.No.8178 of 2024, an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,87,374/- has been remitted towards the disputed tax demand leaving a balance of Rs. 1,72,989/- to fulfil the 30% pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) of applicable GST enactments. If 30% of the disputed tax demand is remitted, the statute provides for a stay of any recovery or coercive action until the statutory appeal is disposed of.
The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,72,989/- towards fulfilment of pre-deposit requirements in terms of Section 112(8) of applicable GST enactments. Such remittance shall be made within a maximum period of two (2) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1273 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Quantum of penalty - Demand of penalty at the higher rate being 100 percent of the value of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On query made, learned counsel for the revenue has made a fair statement, it cannot be doubted, the petitioner is the bona-fide owner of the goods.
Accordingly, the penalty order is modified to the extent penalty imposed. Quantum is reduced in terms of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act i.e. equal to twice the amount of tax imposed on the value of the goods, as estimated by the revenue authorities.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover - non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of rejection - reversal of ITC as regards the disparity between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns - short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover as declared in Form GSTR 3B - non reversal of ITC on account of rejection of goods received as inputs - HELD THAT:- The impugned order warrants interference albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. By taking note of the heads of tax demand in the impugned order and the submissions made in respect thereof, it is found that a liability of Rs. 64,34,49,053/- was imposed merely on the finding that the petitioner was lethargic in rectifying the error committed while filing the GSTR 3B returns. If this amount is excluded and some allowance is made for the ITC reversal against the head relating to excess availment of ITC, the remittance of a sum of Rs. 5 crore as a condition for remand would safeguard revenue interest pending adjudication of remanded proceedings since it would be equivalent to approximately 10% of the remaining disputed tax demand.
The impugned order dated 21.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 5 crore towards the disputed tax demand within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to being satisfied that the said sum of Rs. 5 crore was received, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the above amount.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
