TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the assessment orders in DRC-07 dated 08.11.2024 passed for the respective tax periods by the respondent under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, as modified by the orders dated 11.11.2024. 3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had suffered adverse assessment orders in respect of the re assessment years on 13.09.2023. Even prior to the aforesaid orders, a sum of Rs. 1,42,33,484/- was recovered / paid directly from the petitioner's bank account on 30.01.2023 towards the tax liability. 4. In this background, by a common order dated 21.08.2024 in W.P.Nos.14865, 14869, 14873, 14875 & 14877 of 2024, wherein these aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C - 07 has now been passed, wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,23,52,610/-, together with interest and penalty under Sections 50 and 74 of the TNGST Act. The total amount of tax payable by the petitioner along with interest and penalty comes to Rs. 55,86,77,302/-. 6. The dispute arises on account of the inflated and padded return of income filed by the petitioner for the respective tax periods before the Income Tax Department. The total turnover reported by the petitioner (supply) for the period in disputed is Rs. 29,69,00,919.88/-. However, according to the in the Income Tax portal, the petitioner has declared a turnover of Rs. 1,66,93,09,862/- for the financial years 2016-17 to 2021-2022. 7. The Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents and local bodies in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, it is submitted that no tax liability arises in the State assessment and the invocation of Section 74 of the Act against the petitioner is unjustified. 10. The petitioner submits that the total bank receipts during the period in dispute amounted only Rs. 27,89,45,705/-, which does not correspond with the inflated turnover reflected on the Income Tax portal at Rs. 1,66,93,09,862/-. 11. It is submitted that there are several decisions of the Tribunal as well as various Courts holding that the turnover declared for the purpose of securing contracts before the Income Tax Portal cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion in the context of levy of tax under the Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars, and therefore, the impugned order does not merit any interference. 15. It is further submitted that this is the second round of litigation before this Court, as earlier assessment orders dated 13.09.2023 passed for the respective period were interfered with by this Court on 21.08.2024. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned orders in the present writ petitions have been passed. It is submitted that the impugned orders are detailed and reasoned orders and does not warrant any consideration. 16. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the appellate forum against the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the writ petition has been filed belatedly. The impugned orders were passed on 08.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the transactions. 21. Considering the fact that the assessment orders dated 13.09.2023, which were earlier passed, have now been superseded by the impugned orders dated 08.11.2024, as modified on 11.11.2024, this Court is inclined to dispose of these cases by remitting back to the concerned respondents to pass fresh orders on merits, subject to the following conditions:- (i) There shall be an audit of the petitioner's records for the entire period in dispute by the auditing wing of the respondents' GST Department. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondents by furnishing all data and documents, including passwords, for the forensic examination of the petitioner's book of accounts maintained physically and electronica....