2025 (1) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... objection which was filed by the petitioner in response to the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that that the petitioner is engaged in the execution of works contracts primarily with Government Departments. In terms of Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government Departments, while making payments to contractors, are required to deduct TDS at the rate of 2%. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that that they had entered into contracts with various Government Departments including the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited. These contracts were executed during the financial years viz., 2018-19 and 2019-20. It is further submitted that payments in respect of the invoices raised by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were however rejected by the respondent on the premise that there was a discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR 9/9C which, according to the petitioner, was being set out for the first time in the impugned order of assessment. Apart from this, several other issues were raised for the first time in the impugned order including inter alia Advances adjusted, Sale of fixed assets, Amendment made, Non-GST supply and Interest Income. It was submitted that none of the above 5 issues were subject matter of the Show Cause Notice. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order thus traverses beyond the Show Cause Notice and therefore cannot be sustained in terms of Section 75(7) of the GST Act, which reads as under: ....