TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness and validity of show cause notice dated 29.10.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RGST Act, 2017')/the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act, 2017') for financial year 2018-19 as also order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,81,522/- towards service tax on royalty, interest and penalty. 2. Though number of grounds have been urged in the writ petition as also before this Court to assail the correctness and validity of aforesaid show cause notice as al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order in appeal, respondent therein filed an application under Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, highlighting certain errors in raising the demand based on incorrect turnover reported by the assessee. The application having been rejected, an appeal was filed. Finally, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the assessment order. The appeal against the assessment order was dismissed being barred by limitation and also because no sufficient cause was made out. Thereafter, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking quashment and setting aside of assessment order on various grounds including the ground that it was contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such. 23. Arguendo, reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is noticed that the respondent had asserted that it was not aware about the passing of assessment order dated 21.6.2017 although it is admitted that the same was served on the authorised representative of the respondent on 22.6.2017. The date on which the respondent became aware about the order is not expressly stated either in the application for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority, the affidavit filed in support of the said application or for that matter, in the memo of writ petition. On the other hand, it is seen that the amount equivalent to 12.5% of the tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding has not been examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that the respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional amount in terms of the previous order passed by it. That reason can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. Notably, the respondent had relied on the affidavit of the Site Director and no affidavit of the concerned employee (P. Sriram Murthy, Deputy Manager-Financ....