TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount the evidence placed on record, including the licence issued by the Excise Commissioner, the licence cum manufacturing agreement and the statements of Smt.N.Nalini and Shri.R.V.Ravikumar. Upon appraisal of such evidence, materiality and weight was assigned to such evidence while drawing conclusions. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in these facts and circumstances. The impugned order is dated 11.12.2023 and this writ petition was filed in January 2024. As of the date of filing, the limitation period had not expired. As on date, the condonation period is on the verge of expiry. Thus, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and other relevant documents were disregarded while issuing the impugned order. 3. Mr.Ramesh Kutty, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. He points out that the statements of Smt.N.Nalini, Authorized Signatory, and Shri.R.V.Ravikumar, Managing Director, were taken into consideration while confirming the tax demand. By drawing reference to the statement of Smt.N.Nalini and, in particular, the answer to question 3 as well as the answer to question 1 of Shri.R.V.Ravikumar, learned senior standing counsel submits that the tax demand was confirmed by appraising all material evidence, including the above statements. He also refers to Circular No.160/20/2021-GST of the Ministry of Finance that job work in relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate State Excise duty; that all purchases and sales happened in the name of M/s.Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd since they were holding state excise permit; that there was a bank account opened in the joint name of M/s.Ravikumar distilleries Ltd and the respective principal; that all payments for purchases were made by their principals from that account and sale proceeds are also received in that account; that they received bottling charges for manufacture of IMFL separately and were paying GST on such charges collected; The Authorised Signatory further stated that they had been paying GST @ 18% for the period from July 2017 to November 2017; that subsequent to November 2017 they were paying GST @ 5% on bottling charges for a few of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Act 2017 to determine the taxability of their supply; however they have not opted for the same and have continued to pay GST at the rate of 5% on the said Job work charges. Hence, the taxpayer's contention now, that the supply is not taxable after the issue of SCN is not acceptable and appears to be an afterthought. Hence, I am inclined to hold the amount of Rs. 1,36,94,230/- (IGST-Rs. 1,36,94,230/-) demanded in the SCN as payable. 5. The above extract reveals that the assessing officer took into account the evidence placed on record, including the licence issued by the Excise Commissioner, the licence cum manufacturing agreement and the statements of Smt.N.Nalini and Shri.R.V.Ravikumar. Upon appraisal of such evidence, materiality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
