2026 (4) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was filed in view of order dated 6/2/2026, which reads as under : "Pursuant to order dated 30/01/2026, Mr. Satish Kumar, Joint Commissioner (Anti Evasion), CGST, Nagpur; Mr. Rajesh Naukaria, Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), CGST, Nagpur and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Paswan, Superintendent (Anti Evasion), CGST, Nagpur are present through Video Conferencing and Mr. Ashutosh P. Zodpey, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Nodal- 1 Division, Nagpur and Mr. Tejrao K. Pacharne, Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Nagpur Zone, Nagpur are physically present before the Court. 02. When enquired, Mr. Satish Kumar submits that the statement made by the learned Counsel on 30/01/2026 that the petitioner had submitted documentary evidenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner. 4] The revenue, in the additional affidavit of reply, has come up with a case that since the petitioner has paid the entire amount voluntarily, there is no question of revenue adjudicating liability and/or imposing 100% penalty on the alleged tax. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5 to 7, submits that the revenue had never imposed 100% penalty, but the petitioner itself deposited the said amount. He has then invited our attention to the instructions issued by the Central Government on 25/5/2022, by which, the department has issued clarification as regards legal position of voluntary payment of tax for ensuring correct application of law, and to protect interest of the tax payers. One of the Cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nexure - M and is, thus, a part of the petition. 7] The respondents, therefore, were aware of the fact that the Delhi High Court has taken a particular view in the identical set of facts. Despite that, in the additional reply, the revenue has not dealt with this vital aspect. Nonetheless, we enquired with Mr. Maheshwari as to why was action not taken in terms of Clause 5 of the Circular. He submits that the complaint/grievance was lodged in December - 2024, whereas, prior thereto, the petitioner, in June - 2024, made yet another communication without making any grievance. According to  him, the subsequent communication is an improvisation/afterthought. 8] On this, we enquired with Mr. Maheshwari whether such status will relieve t....