TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 73 of the said Act of 2017, which had been impugned before the appellate authority. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Briefly, summed up the facts of the case as run in the writ petition are as follows:- a. The petitioner no. 1 (hereafter "the petitioner") was served with six several notices to show cause on March 15, 2023 alleging that the petitioner had provided "services in relation to transport of goods by road and tax paid under forward charge method" and that as "per data available in GST B.O. portal" the petitioner had declared its "turnover of outward supply in GSTR-3B filed for the period 2021-22 which was less than the actual supplies." b. The notice to show cause required the petitioner to file its r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th June, 2017] the supplies made by the petitioner under the Reverse Charge Mechanism from 3rd April 2021 to 31st March 2022 would be "treated as taxable @6% central tax" and tax will be payable by the petitioner thereon under the Forward Charge Mechanism. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner had made supplies under Reverse Charge Mechanism only. f. Assailing the said adjudication order dated May 19, 2023 petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.A. 6247 of 2024 which was disposed of by an order dated April 01, 2024 thereby granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017. g. The petitioner then carried the said adjudication order dated May 19,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 75(7) of the said Act of 2017. Mr. Kanodia asserts that if at all, the adjudicating authority was desirous of passing an order on a ground different than the ones mentioned in the notice to show-cause, it must have issued a fresh notice to show cause and should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the said point. 5. He then places page 34 of the appellate order (at page 161 of the writ petition) to demonstrate that the appellate authority agreed with the petitioner on the point that the adjudicating authority had acted in violation of the provision of section 75(7) of the said Act of 2017, yet, the appellate authority proceeded to confirm the adjudication order by observing that the same was a "technica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only confined to the point that the turnover of outward supplies that had been declared by the petitioners in the return filed in form GSTR-3B was less than the actual supplies. The petitioner accordingly placed its case before the adjudicating authority to answer the said point only. The adjudication order reveals that since after wading through the records produced by the petitioners, the Proper Officer/adjudicating authority had found that the petitioner had opted to pay tax under the Forward Charge Mechanism and had issued tax invoice under Forward Charge Mechanism on April 03, 2021. It was on such basis that the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that in terms of the notification dated August 22, 2017, the petitioners being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertained to mere quantification. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue could not have been said to be a mere technical issue. The issue involves the question as to whether or not the supplies made by the petitioner under the Reverse Charge Mechanism could also be treated as having been made under the Forward Charge Mechanism on the strength of the said notification dated August 22, 2017. The adjudicating authority's interpretation of the situation could not have been unilaterally imposed on the petitioner in violation of a mandatory statutory provision. The appellate authority should also not have made light of such statutory violation by a statutory authority by calling it a mere technicality. 15. Further, there is substan....