2024 (6) TMI 1314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Natrajan, for Mr. G. Gokul Kishore. For the Respondents : Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (Tax) ORDER An order in original dated 26.12.2023 is assailed on the ground of non-application of mind and failure to consider the material placed on record by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 23.03.203 in respect of multiple heads of demand. The said show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntrary to Notification No.11/2017. As regards tax proposal No.7, which relates to a mismatch between GSTR 1 and Form 26AS, he submits that the reconciliation provided by the petitioner was disregarded while arriving at the conclusion. As regards the tax proposal relating to excess availment of Input Tax Credit, he submits that the petitioner had submitted certificate from suppliers but not from th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax proposal No.3 relating to the assessment period 2018-19 that the difference between the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns for July 2017 was excluded therefrom. Therefore, it appears prima facie that the two tax proposals overlap. As regards the tax proposal relating to the rate of tax on road works, the petitioner has placed on record relevant notifications. These notifications indicate prima facie th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner. 7. Upon considering the above facts and circumstances cumulatively, it is just and necessary that the matter be remanded for reconsideration. Since a substantial tax demand is involved, even after excluding amounts payable with regard to tax proposals that appear to be prima facie untenable, revenue interest is required to be protected. Towards such end, the petitioner is directed ....