2024 (3) TMI 1272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s For the Respondents : Mr.Ramesh Kutty Senior Standing Counsel ORDER An order in original dated 21.12.2023 in relation to assessment period 2017-18 is challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023. Such show cause notice was replied to on 19.10.2023. Eventually, the impugned order was issued on 21.12.2023. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order. After pointing out that such impugned order dealt with seven issues, learned senior counsel focussed attention on the objection relating to short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover. He pointed out that the matter pertains to the initial year of GST implementation. Therefore, the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the total tax demand of about Rs. 117 crore, the demand in relation to about Rs. 115 crore is completely unsustainable. 5. Mr.Ramesh Kutty, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, he submits that the impugned order was issued after considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and after providing a personal hearing. In these circumstances, he submits that no case is made out to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. He next submitted that the petitioner failed to submit necessary documents to establish that the turnover reflected in the GSTR 3B return was not correct. He also submits that the petitioner should have taken steps to rectify ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds also the differences in the turnover runs in crores. This evident explicit that, the taxpayer had lethargically maintained their accounts without some sort of seriousness." 8. From the above findings, it follows that the adjudicating authority rejected the petitioner's explanation because the petitioner was lethargic in maintaining its accounts. Even proceeding on the basis that the petitioner was lax in reporting the mistake within a reasonable period, such laxity does not justify the imposition of liability of about Rs. 64,34,49,053/- on the basis of a turnover reported wrongly. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the statute does not enable rectification until the annual return is filed. 9.....