2026 (8) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the respondent. 2. Point involved in this case, to put it in brief:- The appellant is a trader in the garments business. For managing its accounts and administrative affairs, it has engaged the service of M/s Infotech Audit Solution, which has supplied software, by name, ERP software for warehouse office staff and in-house activities. For the said service, during the assessment year 2017-2018, the appellant has paid around Rs. 40 lakhs, which is inclusive of service tax of Rs. 2,37,965/-. The Input Tax Credit in respect of the service tax is the subject matter of the appeal. 3. According to the appellant, the service tax/GST paid to the service provider is covered for Input Tax Credit. Whereas, the Department has contended ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2025 confirming the levy of tax and refusal of Input Tax Credit, besides interest and penalty imposed invoking Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Challenging the said imposition of interest and penalty, the writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned Single Judge, considering the facts, dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no scope for interference in the impugned assessment order, as the petitioner has accepted the demand proposed therein and made payment on 18.10.2024 in Form GST DRC-03 for a sum of Rs. 2,37,965/-. The demand of interest under Section 50(3) and the penalty imposed under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactents are the automatic corollary in the case of willful mis-statement and short-paid tax. 7. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re is a statutory appeal remedy available to the appellant herein, instead of invoking the statutory appeal remedy, the writ petition has been filed which is per se not maintainable. In this case, unlike the facts in the cases which have been referred to as precedents, a peculiar and unique circumstances is found for consideration, that is, the service which is alleged to have been availed by the appellant herein, being intangible goods, we cannot expect the physical transport of the said goods. However, the existence and utilisation can be very well verified by production of the outcome and utilisation of the said software. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ERP software primarily relates to generating....