9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of seven audit observations. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice on 16.02.2024 by enclosing reply dated 18.12.2023, which was submitted in response to the audit report. The petitioner also submitted additional documents under letter dated 22.04.2024. The impugned order was issued about three days later on 25.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in unloading, storage and regasification of liquified natural gas (LNG), which is imported by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. He further submits that the plant was being installed and commissioned during financial year 2018-2019. As a consequence, he submits that there was marginal outward supply during the relevant period. He points ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n into consideration while issuing the impugned order. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that seven tax proposals are dealt with therein. Out of these tax proposals, the 4th proposal pertains to sundry creditors. On this issue, the assessing officer took into account the payables of Rs. 470,38,00,000/- and treated such payables as taxable under applicable GST enactments. Such conclusion was reached by recording as under: "Observation of the Adjudication Officer: The reply and the documents (list of excel sheet) filed by the taxpayers were carefully examined. In their reply they have stated that Rs. 470,38,00,000/- includes outstanding liability provision provided as on 31.3.2019 against amount payable excluding taxes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that upon the relevant goods being supplied and installed, payments would be made and the value thereof would be shown in the balance sheet as capital assets. Even assuming that sundry creditors were not paid for 180 days, at worst, the corresponding ITC would be reversible. The conclusion that the aggregate sum of Rs. 470,38,00,000/- is taxable merely because the petitioner had not placed on record all necessary documents is therefore untenable. This amount constitutes about 85% of the total demand. Interference with the impugned order is, therefore, warranted. 6. The petitioner cannot be absolved of complete responsibility for the current state of affairs in as much as the petitioner did not submit all necessary documents. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
