TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner to pay GST liability along with interest and full penalty for GST liability. 2. Heard Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents . 3. Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the charitable trust having registered office at Karur. Under the said trust petitioner runs a marriage hall under the name and style of M/s. Prem Mahal at Kovai Road. He submits that the petitioner registered as service provider under CGST Act w.e.f. 14.02.2020. 4. He contends that the CGST department preventive unit visited marriage hall on 23.01.2020 and asked to handover entire accounts and records. Hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assumption is against the basic principles of indirect taxation and the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax as it is agent of government which has to be paid by the person concerned. 6. He further submits that after submission of objection by the petitioner the second respondent passed an order in original dated 23.02.2022, demanding balance GST liability of Rs. 10,60,852/- along with interest and full amount of GST liability as penalty ie.Rs. 69,54,554/-. Thereby, the second respondent invoking Section 74 (1) of CGST Act rejected the petitioner claim of cum tax basis benefit was rejected. He expostulates that the second respondent had not even established the petitioner involved in fraud or willfull misstatement or suppression of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He further submits that section 122 (2) (b) of CGST Act penalty applies for registered entity and not the petitioner which is not registered at the time of visit by the respondents. Further, he submits that for non registered entity penalty of Rs. 10,000/- can be levied under Section 122 (1) of the CGST Act. For the aforesaid contentions the petitioner seeks the interference of this court in the order in original and the order in Appeal. 10. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner was rendering taxable activities such as renting of marriage hall and other related taxable supply. Based on specific intelligence, an investigation was caused in the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Rs. 8.84,056/- under Section 122 (2) (b) of CGST Act, 2017. 12. He further contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. After due process of law, the Appellate Authority passed Order-in-Appeal No. 69/2022-TRY(GST) dated 29.07.2022 and upheld the order in Original and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. He further contends that Show cause notice was properly issued since because the petitioner not paid the full GST liability along with interest and penalty. He expostulates that as per section 73 (8) of CGST Act, no penalty shall be levied since the petitioner has already discharged the full tax liability which is false and misleading. He further submits that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that the order-in-Original and order-in-Appeal are good in law and not requires any interference of this court. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. The entire claim against the petitioner had arisen of its own failure to register itself under the GST Act as required under law. Only pursuant thereto, the petitioner had remitted the tax that he is liable to pay. Even though, such action is claimed to be a voluntary payment by the petitioner, it should be seen that the petitioner had attempted to evade payment of tax which is liable to be taxed and only pursuant to t....