TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judicial Division-III, Lucknow in ZD091121007477M/ZD0910220669953. 3. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner namely, M/S Jalsa Resorts(India) Private Limited situated near Khurdahi Bazar, Sultanpur Road, Lucknow under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-12, Lucknow whereby, tax penalty and interest on amount of Rs.48,90,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner's premises were inspected by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017. The said resort is also used for organizing marriages and other functions. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special Investigation Branch, the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me party organizes any other function, then the advance amount is adjusted. 8. It was said when the search was made by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017, the petitioner was not well and he was admitted in a hospital and all the relevant documents were with the accountant and therefore, the relevant documents could not produced before the Special Investigation Branch, who conducted the raid on 06.12.2017. It is relevant to mention here that if the petitioner was not in a position to produce the relevant documents at the time of the raid by the Special Investigation Branch, nothing prevented him to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Authority in pursuance to the show cause notice issued to him. The petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at because of these loose papers, no solid conclusion can be drawn. The petitioner had accepted before the appellate authority that in the financial year concerned, he had received the taxable amount Rs. 43,75,059.46/- on which, he had paid Rs. 3,70,229/- each for State G.S.T. and Central G.S.T. From the entries, as found in the diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received much more advance than it was shown in the returns. From the documents recovered from the resort by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received Rs.17,95,000/-, whereas in the return he has shown advance of Rs. 3,73,983.05/- only. 11. Considering these facts, the appellate author....