2025 (11) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent no. 2 in the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act (F.Y. 2018-19) and the order dated 28.4.2024 passed by respondent no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is registered under the GST having GSTIN No. 09ADUPK0135F1ZJ and involved in work contract. He submits that on 31.1.2024 notice was issued under Section 73 of the Act for F.Y. 2018-19 alleging difference in the figures mentioned by the petitioner in GSTR -3B and details reflecting in Form 26AS of the petitioner. He submits that since the notice was uploaded in the tab 'additional notice and order' therefore, the petitioner was not able to know about the same, therefore, he could not file any reply of the said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further submits that without making any inquiry from respective department i.e. Jal Nigam, respondent no. 4, the present proceedings have been initiated, which is bad and liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has not discharged its liability of tax, therefore, the present proceeding has rightly been initiated. He further submits that there is clear cut mismatch of the return filed by the petitioner in GSTR 3 B and the details reflected in Form 26 AS of the petitioner provided by the Income Tax department. He further submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to produce evidence in support of its claim that the amount reflected in Form 26 AS is of the VAT perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he GST authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction to levy tax, interest or penalty on the ground of mismatch between GSTR 3 B and Form 26 AS of the petitioner issued by the Income Tax Department. It was the duty of the GST authorities to inform the assessing authority under the VAT Act and then the assessing authority of the petitioner should have looked into the matter but by no stretch of imagination, the present proceedings have been initiated under the GST regime and the proper officer assumes charge of levying GST, interest and penalty in respect of the work made prior to implementation of GST regime. 9. Further, learned ACSC also could not show any provision under the GST Act or Rules, which empowers for assuming jurisdiction for l....