2025 (10) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petitioner is a dealer in Vitrified Tiles and a registered tax payer under CGST / TNGST Act, 2017. 3. It is submitted that GST Intelligence Wing of the respondent department had conducted a surprise inspection in the petitioner's premises on 14.10.2024 under Section 67 of the CGST/ TNGST Act, 2017, and during the course of such inspection, the following discrepancies were found: "a) The petitioner had availed input tax credit which they are ineligible in terms of Section 17(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. b) The petitioner had failed to maintain stock books. c) The petitioner had pointed out stock variation as on 19.11.2024." 4. It is submitted that, even during the course of the inspection, petitioner subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;s reply on 22 April 2025-citing a misunderstanding of the GST portal's functionality for the delay in replying-is noted. 1. Ignorance or misunderstanding cannot absolve them from the consequences of non-compliance. 2. It is further observed that the Taxpayer had been aware of the defects since November 2024. Despite having sufficient time and information, they negligently failed to file a timely response. 3. In view of the above, the explanation offered cannot be accepted as valid, and the proceedings will be concluded based on the records and in accordance with law. 2. Additionally, if the inspection had not occurred and the discrepancy remained undetected, it would have resulted in revenue loss to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7,44,874 84,101       Total 7,63,717 2,02,060 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the above passages to show that the impugned order does not even deal with any of their objections and there is no reason set out as to why the explanation that has been offered by them is unacceptable. 10. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as no reason has been assigned by the 1st respondent as to why the explanation offered by the petitioner was unacceptable while confirming the proposed demand, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. 11. When this was pointed out, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would subm....