2024 (7) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), thereby determining tax liability of the petitioner in terms of the show cause cum demand notice dated 20th April, 2021. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid show cause is barred by limitation. Independent of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the petitioner had executed Government contracts, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Mega Exemption Notification dated 20th June, 2012 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 93 (1) of the said Act. 4. By drawing attention of this Court to the payment certificate, appearing at pages 42 and 43 of the writ petition, it is submitted that despite the Executive Engineer, Diamond ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He submits that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the Additional Commissioner of CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate to appear before him. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner chose not to appear. In the facts as noted hereinabove, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX on 29th February, 2024 cannot be said to be irregular. 9. By drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 6.1 of the said order dated 29th February, 2024 it is submitted that the hearing of the show cause notice had been assigned by the Chief Commissioner to the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 16th November, 2022. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner had taken up the matter and as such there cannot be any jurisdicti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of Income Tax, hence the mismatch. Records also reveal that the petitioner had submitted bills, statements, audited report, Form 26AS and the work order issued by the Governmental authorities. According to the authorized officer, the petitioner did not submit output service bills as asked for verification with the work order. Since, the petitioner failed to submit the original work order for verifying the authenticity of the same, the authorized officer had refused to accept the contractual price received by petitioner for the work orders. It is, however, not in dispute that the payment had been disbursed in favour of the petitioner by the PWD as would corroborate from the documents appearing at pages 42 and 43 of the writ petition date....