2026 (7) TMI 1765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for respondent No.4. 2. Petitioner-firm, registered with GSTIN No. 36BEFPS6699M1ZE, under the Telangana State Tax Department has been proceeded against under Section 74 of the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, vide summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 29.11.2024, on two charges i.e., (i) discrepancy in GSTR-3B of the petitioner and GSTR-1 of the supplier and (ii) During the audit, on comparison of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the petitioner was found to have underreported the tax liability at Rs.5,11,346/- as against Rs.6,58,326/- compri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and similar provisions of the SGST Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said Order-in-Original, which has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in the process of filing an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). 5. In these background facts, petitioner has taken a plea that the adjudication proceedings conducted by the SGST authorities for the financial year 2020-2021 not only overlap the CGST proceedings for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 in respect of certain period but also overlap the charge against the petitioner of having ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner, based on the audit report, the CGST proceedings were initiated on the basis of the investigation, which revealed irregular availment of ITC by the petitioner without receipt of goods and against fake invoices issued by the non-existent firms, which is in contravention of Section 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. However, in substance, the demand relating to irregular availment of ITC was for the same reason i.e., discrepancy between GSTR-1 of the supplier and GSTR-3B of the petitioner. It also appears that the second charge in the SGST proceedings was for underreporting of the tax liability by the petitioner based on audit report. From perusal of the Assessment Order dated 12.05.2025, it is evident that the petitioner has neither ....