TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by and whereunder the ex-parte assessment order has been passed for the aforesaid period and thereby a total liability of Rs.44,42,848/- (with breakup as -(a) Tax worth Rs.22,89,337/- (b) Interest worth Rs.19,24,959/- and (c) Penalty worth Rs.2,28, 552/-), has been imposed on the petitioner; (ii) For issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the ex-parte demand issued in form DRC-07 dated 06.12.2023 (Ref. No. ZD101223006107B) (Annexure-P/2) i.e. by Respondent No.6 for the F.Y. 2018-19 whereby and whereunder the demand order DRC 07 has been issued under Sec 73(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 for the aforesaid year. Through the said DRC-07 a demand has been raised for the aforesaid period a total liability of Rs. 44,42,848/- (with breakup as -(a) Tax worth Rs.22,89,337/- (b) Interest worth Rs.19,24,959/- and (c) Penalty worth Rs.2,28,552/-), has been imposed on the petitioner; (iii) For issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the Appellate order bearing No. 571 dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure- P/3) passed in Appeal Case No. AD100324000668L by Respondent No.5 for the F.Y 2018-19 whereby and whereunder the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023 (Annexure-P/1) is an ex-parte order without considering the stand of the petitioner. The further submission is that the Assessing Officer (respondent no.6) has not taken into consideration the GSTR-9 i.e. final return submitted by the petitioner in respect to the difference in turnover which was wrongly declared in December 2018 month GST return due to clerical error/typographical mistake. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner being aggrieved by the order, as contained in Annexure-P/1, preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals)-respondent no.5, the appellate authority rejected the appeal. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the assessment for the aforesaid period was carried out on the basis of disparity in turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-09 related to the petitioner, the turn over reconciliation with respect to the alleged suppression of turnover submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent no.5 before issuing the appellate order. Submissions on behalf of the respondents 4. Learned ASG as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for personal hearing before the respondent assessing authority. 7. From the records, it appears that the copy of the counter affidavit of respondent nos.5 and 6 was served upon the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner as back as on 21.4.2025 but no rejoinder to the same has been filed by the petitioner. Consideration 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG for the respondent nos.5 and 6 as also on perusal of the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-P/1 and P/3 respectively, we find that the order under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act and Rule, 2017 has been passed after the annual return furnished by the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19 was selected for scrutiny. The assessing authority noticed the suppression of turnover, availment and utilization of input tax credit wrongly and delayed payment of tax. The liability on these accounts were quantified under the provisions of Section 73(1) of CGST/BGST Act. 9. This Court further finds that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the total tax amount of Rs.22,89,337/- which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances, it can be from the recipient, therefore the input tax credit which was claimed by the petitioner cannot be denied for the reason that the seller has not uploaded their invoice in time. It is his submission that the provision allowing of input tax credit on the basis of reflection in GSTR-2A was first introduced vide notification No.49-Central Tax dated 09.10.2019 by inserting clause 4 in rule 36 of CGST Rule 36(4). It was submitted that the Rule is applicable from 09.10.2019 with allowing the gap of 20% and the same is not applicable for the financial year 2018- 19. 13. The above-mentioned ground raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority has been discussed in detail in the impugned appellate order. The appellate authority has recorded that on behalf of the appellant it was informed that the mistake in the return of month of December, 2019 has been corrected in GSTR-9 but the appellant did not produce any concrete evidence/document such as sale register and the audit report. 14. The appellate authority has further found that the appellant has availed the benefit of input tax credit in excess of the amount shown in the GSTR-2A. In course of hearing the appel....