2026 (2) TMI 1273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3: Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Anurag Roy. For the respondent no. 1, 2 & 4: Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Tapan Bhanja,. For the UOI: Mr. Prabir Kumar Bhowmick, Mr. Sujit Bhunia,. ORDER 1. At the outset, it is submitted by the parties that there is a mistake in the amounts recorded in paragraph 3 at page 2 of the order dated January 05, 2026. Let the amounts typed as "Rs. 1,41,910 and Rs. 26,920/-" in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- as indicated at the outset) had been made by the petitioner to the respondents CGST Authorities on account of service tax in respect of "works contract service" for the same year for which the order in original dated April 18, 2024 had been passed and that the said sums should have been considered by the appellate authority as having been made towards compliance with the requirement of statutory....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to submit further that nothing in this regard was mentioned in any statutory document(s) by the petitioner above named. This amount was not pertinent to any outstanding declared liability on part of the said petitioner as per their Service Tax returns. .......................... .................. ....................... Hence, reason of payment of Rs. 1,80,890/- vide above state....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 1,80,890/- is already lying with the respondent CGST Authorities which in terms of the report the petitioner was not otherwise liable to pay on account of any demand having been raised against him therefore, for ends of justice it is directed that the respondent CGST Authorities shall treat the aforesaid sum or any portion thereof (as may be required/necessary) as ....