TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following substantive reliefs:- a) That the order under Section 74 of HP GST Act, 2017, dated 02.12.2023, passed by the respondent No. 4, charging interest of Rs. 1,32,34,923/- and levying penalty of Rs. 1,11,45,134/-, be quashed. b) The respondent No. 4 be directed to issue a fresh DRC-07 incorporating only the disputed amount of tax of Rs. 1,11,45,134/-, on account of alleged wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), so as to enable the petitioner agitate the same by way of First Appeal, before Appellate Authority. c) Petitioner, in alternate to the relief, made at point (a) & (b), prays, the entire proceedings and held the ITC availed by the petitioner as valid and legal in accordance with the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Chapter 99 of GST Tariff having Services Accounting Code (SAC) 9954, 9987 etc. and is duly registered under the HP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 vide GSTIN:02AAHCS6024LIZE. 5. On 30.05.2022, the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes & Excise, Shimla issued notice to the petitioner in form ADT-01, informing it about initiation of audit under Section 65 the HPGST/CGST Acts, 2017, for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The detailed reply dated 04.07.2022 alongwith the requisite information was submitted by the petitioner, however, nonetheless respondent No. 2 issued audit memo and observation dated 11.10.2022 informing the petitioner about the wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the rune of Rs. 1.11 crores in respect of purchases made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Rule 101(4) of HP Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 on 18.01.2023 pointing out the alleged discrepancies with suspected amount of tax evasion to the tune of Rs. 1,11,45,134/-. Further, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to reverse the alleged wrong availed ITC alongwith interest and penalty under Section 74 of the Act. 9. The petitioner filed a detailed response on 16.02.2023 alongwith which it annexed copies of affidavits of transporter verifying on oath the factum of transportation of goods from Delhi and its delivery at Totu, Shimla. However, despite this, the petitioner received final audit report on 15.03.2023 from respondents No. 2 and 3. It also received Audit Report in Form ADT-02, under Section 65(6) on 25.03.2023 whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order dated 02.12.2023 passed under Section 74 restricting the liability only to the extent of interest and penalty. The petitioner categorically pleaded that the amount in question was deposited under protest without admitting the liability. The petitioner further stated in the application that the appeal could not be filed in the case of nil basic demand. 13. Respondent No. 4 refused to rectify order dated 02.12.2023 on the ground that there was no mis-match between show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and DRC-07 dated 02.12.2023. Respondent No. 4 did not address the basic point raised by the petitioner in rectification application questioning the creation of tax liability so as to enable the petitioner agitate before the Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n impartial inquiry regarding the aforesaid amount and could not have based its decision solely on summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01. 19. We need not go to the other points raised in this petition given the fact that respondent No. 4 had decided the case solely on the basis of the payment made by the petitioner of Rs.1,11,45,134/- under protest by treating as an admission of liability which cannot be termed to be voluntary payment so as to give a licence or permit the respondents to treat this amount as admitted liability and thereafter impose penalty and interest thereupon in a manner done in this case. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order under Section 74 of the HP GST Act, 2017,....