2025 (1) TMI 718

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thu Parimal for the petitioner. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.C.A.Mehta waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent no.1 to 4. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order in original for the period in respect of 2017-18 in case of the petitionerfirm as well as the Private Limited Company. 4. As the facts of both the petitions are identical, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The respondent authority issued show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act alleging mismatch in turn over between annual return in Form GSTR-9 and Financial Statement in Form GSTR-9C by demo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sses - petitioner ought to have reported the Gujarat turnover in Table A of GSTR 9C. However, due to oversight, the turnover for all states i.e. Pan-India turnover was reported in Table 6 of GSTR 9C. 9. It was pointed out that the petitioner furnished the details and explanation of the difference between the Forms GSTR 9 and 9C. 10. It was further submitted that though the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to the Notification No.9 of 2023 for extension of time, the same is not pressed under instruction. 11. It was further submitted that though the petitioner could not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, it does not mean that the Adjudicating Authority without considering the reply confirms the show-cause notice r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax, I also find it imperative to verify the authenticity of the claim made by the taxpayer through verifiable documentation. In this regard, I find that the taxpayer has failed to provide any supporting documents in contention of their reply. I further find that the taxpayer has not appeared for personal hearing to represent their case despite being given ample opportunities to do so. I therefore find that the taxpayer has failed to discharge the burden of proof and provide evidence to support its claims. Therefore, the demand for tax, interest and penalty must be upheld." 14. On perusal of the aforesaid observations as well as the impugned order as a whole, we are unable to find any discussion on the reply filed by the petitioner except....