9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were raised in respect of multiple issues. The petitioner responded to such queries by statement dated 19.09.2022 of Thiru. K. Kirshnakumar, one of the partners of the petitioner. Documents were also annexed to such statement. By further reply dated 26.10.2022, the petitioner submitted replies and enclosed documents. Thereafter, pursuant to the findings of the inspection officer, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Upon receipt thereof, the petitioner requested for further time on about two or three occasions. The impugned orders were issued in these facts and circumstances. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner filed rectification petitions by asserting that there are errors apparent. Such rectification petitions were not acted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By referring to the orders impugned herein, learned counsel points out that the tax proposals were confirmed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments and although the ingredients of Section 74 are absent both in the show cause notices and the impugned orders. He also submits that the findings of the processing officer (i.e. the inspection officer) were extracted in the impugned order and that, eventually, the findings of the proper officer were recorded briefly in a table at the foot of the order. He contends that the proper officer was under an obligation to independently apply his mind and not proceed entirely on the basis of the findings of the inspection officer. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgments of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the inspection report dated 21.12.2022. The orders also extracted the findings of the processing officer pursuant to such inspection in relation to each defect dealt with therein. 8. The petitioner has placed on record the statement dated 19.09.2022 and the reply dated 26.10.2022. Although the inspection report and the findings of the inspection officer were adverted to in the impugned order, the petitioner's responses in the course of inspection do not find mention therein. It also appears that the tax proposals were confirmed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments. 9. As regards assessment period 2019-20, on examining the order, with regard to defect no.2 relating to the mismatch between purchase value as per GSTR 2A and ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
