9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CMAPPL. 26164/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-M/s Sun Automation Limited under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 27th November, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the SCN') as also the consequent order dated 27th February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Jurisdiction: Ward 71:Zone 6: Delhi, State/UT: Delhi (hereinafter, 'the DGST Department') pertaining to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. 4. Vide the impugned order, a demand of Rs.157,66,85,186/- has been raised, both, of tax and penalty in respect of certain transactions entered into between the Petitioner and two companies namely M/s Microlyte E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under section 122 (1) (ii) of CGST Act, 2017 for issuing invoices or bills invoicing CGST/SGST/IGST without supply of goods and services. (Page 230, Para 23 (C) (1) Amounting to Rs. 38,98,17,404 /- of Tax demand alleged to be due to incorrect declaration of tax on outward supplies resulting from denial of ITC in GSTR-09. Particulars (in Rs.) Total Outward Tax Liability:- 46,76.21,564 Less:- Paid through cash 3,86,502 Less:- Paid through ITC 7,74,17,658 Net Tax Payable 38,98,17,404 Already Paid by the assessee through ITC 38,98,17,404 Order dt. 30.08.2024 imposed penalty of Rs. 46,76,21,565/- u/s 12 2(1) (ii) on the ground that invoices were raised without actual supply of goods. Order dt. 27.11.2024 imposed tax de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DGST Department is tenable. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that in so far as the demand by the CGST Department is concerned, the same was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals-I), CGST and the appeal in respect of the said proceedings has also been decided vide Order-in-Appeal No.: 17-18/ Commr./Central Tax/ Appeal-I/ Delhi/ 2025 dated 3rd April, 2025, wherein a penalty has been imposed on the Petitioner. 8. In view of the above, it is clear that the DGST Department shall be required to look at the order passed by the appellate authority dated 3rd April, 2025. The relevant provision being relied upon the Petitioner i.e., Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST Act is reproduced herein below: 6. Authorisation of offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot result in the taxpayers being subjected to parallel proceedings. 30. We are unable to accept that the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act proscribe the transfer of investigations or proceedings as is contended on behalf of the petitioner. The object of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act is to avoid multiple proceedings by State Tax Officers and Central Tax Officers on the same subject matter and the rule of purposive interpretation requires Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act to be read in the light of the aforesaid object. 10 In light of the rationale of Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST Act, as explained in the decision herein above, it is clear that the DGST Department shall be required to consider the order dated 3rd April, 2025 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
