2026 (8) TMI 1692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt writ petition, the petitioner being a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing construction services has assailed the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the respondent under the provision of Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act'), raising the demand of tax and penalty of Rs. 47,87,271/- [Rs. 8,54,870/- + Rs. 39,32,401/-] along with interest. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Pursuant to the intelligence gathered by the Surat Commissionerate, CGST, the petitioner was called upon the pay the tax amounting to Rs. 8,54,870/- along with interest and penalty in FORM GST DRC-01A under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, alleging that the petitioner had supplied the excavated soil worth Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f tax along with interest and penalty was raised. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has admitted that Rule 28(a) of the CGST Rules was incorrectly invoked in the case of the petitioner. However, the respondent authority, simultaneously, invoked Rule 27(c) of the CGST Rules and confirmed the demand by resorting to a completely new and different valuation for determining the valuation of the services. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has not offered any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as to how Rule 27(c) of the CGST Rules, would get attracted in the case of the petitioner. Thus, it is urged that the impugned Show Cause Notice as well as the order are required to be quashed and set a....