9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure-E] with a prayer for quashing the recovery notice dated 17.10.2023 issued by the second respondent [Annexure-J] and for refund of Rs. 1,52,03,733/-. 2. The petitioner is issued with notice in Form GST DRC-02 on 29.11.2022 for the period from 2018-19 to 2021-22 referring to the audit report and calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the additional tax liability in a sum of Rs. 22,80,51,322/-. The petitioner has caused reply on 09.01.2023, and with the second respondent passing the impugned order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 computing the petitioner's liability in a total sum of Rs. 25,08,56,456/- [total tax payable of Rs. 22,80,51,322/- with penalty in a sum of Rs. 2,28,05,134/-], the petitioner has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices extended by the petitioner to the defence establishments in Delhi, Jharkhand and other places will not be inter-state supplies. 5. The petitioner asserts that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST]/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [KGST], contemplate the recipient being a registered entity without making a distinction on whether such registration is PAN or TAN. The petitioner further asserts that it has extended invoiced supplies to the recipient establishments which had PAN/TAN, while the supplies made to the recipient establishments with PAN are reduced, the proceedings relating to TAN are continued; and that even otherwise, the petitioner is bona fide in not mentioning the GSTIN obtained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second and the third respondents' impugned orders are perused. These authorities have elaborately referred to the provisions of IGST Act as also the CGST/KGST Act and they have also referred to the details of the recipient establishments. There is obvious reference in the impugned orders to the details furnished by the petitioner after being served with the notice in GST DRC-02, but the proceedings are concluded in the premise that the petitioner has raised Invoices without mentioning the necessary details. This Court must refer to the conclusions by the third respondent on this aspect and it reads as under: "3. From the above relevant sections/rules mentioned regarding the content/particulars of tax invoice or bill of supply there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Further, if the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the GSTIN of the recipient organization was not furnished initially, is able to furnish the same later and demonstrate that its services of imparting training to the helicopter pilots was totally sponsored and borne by the Central Government or the State Government, the third respondent will have to decide whether the exemption vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 could be denied, these aspects will have to be considered for complete adjudication. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned order-in-appeal dated 30.09.2023 [Annexure-E] is quashed and the proceedings are restored to the third respondent to reconsider the merits of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
