2024 (12) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 16.10.2023. 3. The petitioner is engaged in a printing business in the name of Bharathi Printers. The petitioner is a registered dealer under Goods and Services Act, 2017. During the relevant period, the petitioner filed its returns and paid the appropriate taxes. While scrutinizing the petitioner's return, it was found that there was a mismatch in the input tax credit availed in GSTR- 3B and the actual credit reflected in GSTR-1 as stated below: GSTR-I Vs GSTR 3B difference Rs. 27,092/- Interest at 18% p.a till 16.10.2023 Rs. 27,188/- Penalty due (u/s.74 of TNGST Act, 2017) Rs. 27,092/- Total Due Rs. 81,372/- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dyar Branch, Chennai-600 020 vide Ref.No.GSTIN/ID 33AYZPB3829K1ZZ/2017-18 dated 21.05.2024 for Rs.81,372/- 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded under the field "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, they would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of....