2024 (4) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner impugns two orders both dated 31.12.2023, whereby impugned Show Cause Notices dated 05.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 proposing a demand of Rs. 42,74,423.00 and Rs. 33,32,254.00 respectively against the Petitioner have been disposed of and demand including penalty has been created against the Petitioner. The orders have been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed detailed replies dated 14.12.2023 and 03.10.2023, however, the impugned orders dated 31.12.2023 do not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and are cryptic orders. 3. Perusal of the Show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rresponding bank payment details. The taxpayer has furnished plain reply which is not duly supported with proper calculations/reconciliation and relevant documents. **** Keeping in view above provisions it is clear that imposition of penalty is mandatory and by default in case reply is found not be satisfactory. Therefore, the decision to impose a penalty is being taken after considering the reply of the taxpayer which has been found not to be satisfactory." The Proper Officer has opined that the reply is unsatisfactory. 5. Further, impugned order dated 31.12.2023 issued on Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2023, after recording the narration records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is not comprehensive and not suppo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply dated 03.10.2023 is unsatisfactory and reply dated 14.12.2023 is not supported with proper calculations/reconciliation and relevant documents, which ex-facie shows that the Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the replies submitted by the petitioner. 7. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. 8. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 31.12.2023 cannot be sustained, and the matter ....