9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that some of the works have been executed during the VAT regime and are stated to be subject to tax under the GST Act. Detailed replies have been filed by the petitioner in response to Form GST-DRC01A, dated 02.04.2024, whereby it was explained that the proposal to treat a sum of Rs. 42.86 crores as suppression was contrary to the facts inasmuch as out of the total receipts for the year 2017-2018 of Rs. 48.10 crores, Rs. 44.96 crores have been disclosed under the VAT regime and the sums received in respect of the works executed under the GST regime were only to the extent of Rs. 3.35 crores and in respect of the above consideration, taxes have also been duly discharged under the GST. It may be relevant to record the following reply of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Details Turnover Turnover as per Profit and Loss account for the year 17-18 as contract receipts 481016595 Add: Stock transfer to out going partners as per Profit and Loss Account and reported in GSTR 3B 2214607 ADD: Minibus income reported in Profit and Loss account 4080676 Total 487311976 Less: VAT Contract Receipts included in P&L 449680070 Balance 37631906 Less VAT Minibus Income 816315 Balance 36815591 Less: GST Minibus income exempted not reported in GSTR 30 3264361 Net GSTR 3B figure (Contract receipts + Stock transfer to partner [Rs. 31336623 Rs. 2214607] 33551230 Thus the VAT contract receipt is Rs.44,96,80,070/- and not as stated in your notice and we herewith attached all the connected material records for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity of personal hearing to explain the above facts in an effective manner with the assistance of our Tax Consultant and till then your proposal above referred may kindly be deferred. 3. It is submitted that if the Assessing Officer had taken into account the reply and also the details which were furnished along with the reply, it would have been evident that the proposals were grossly erroneous. Instead, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reject the reply/contention of the appellant, by merely stating that the reply was not convincing. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder : ''The reply is not convincing and is not acceptable since they are not supported with valid documentary evidences. Hence, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
