2026 (2) TMI 1254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-GST (JC) dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respondent. By the impugned order, the proposal in Show Cause Cum Demand Notice No.109/2022-GST dated 30.09.2022 has been confirmed against the petitioner to which the petitioner filed a reply on 05.11.2022 and 30.01.2023. 3. Operative portion of the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 is reproduced below: Order (a) In respect of Central Goods and Service Tax: (i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,18,44,675/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Five only) towards the short/not-paid CGST for the period from July 2017 to March 2021 and to recover the same from M/s. Ramasamy Gounder Prakasam (R.Prakasam), Old No. 1/82, New No. 1/202, Masakalipatty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ST Act, 2017; (b) In respect of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax:- (i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,18,44,675/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Five only) towards the short/not-paid SGST for the period from July 2017 to March 2021 and to recover the same from M/s. Ramasamy Gounder Prakasam (R.Prakasam), Old No.1/82, New No. 1/202, Masakalipatty, Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, 637401 under the provisions of Section 74(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017; (ii) I appropriate an amount of SGST of Rs. 17,50,000/- paid by the tax payer as mentioned in Para 17.4. above, towards the part of the tax liability as mentioned in Sl.No.(b)(i) above payable during the period from July 2017 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat only the payments for such work contract were received by the petitioner after the GST regime came into force with effect from 01.07.2017 which has been ignored by the respondent while passing the impugned order. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 81,57,966/- towards the tax whereas in the impugned order, while confirming the demand, same has not been considered properly. Instead, it is submitted that the impugned order confined to only a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs which again has been ignored while giving a finding on Issue No.3. 7. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner is assessed under the State Authority and that the State Authority has passed an order for the tax period 2020-2021 which cov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from time to time, the petitioner shall particularize each of the transactions in the reply and substantiate the same with annexure. Mere filing of the annexure is not sufficient. 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent and perusing the records before this Court and the replies dated 30.01.2023 and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the State Authority for the tax period 2020-2021, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. It is accordingly set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, taking note of the order passed by the State Authority dated 17.02.2025 for the tax period 2020-2021.....