TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner to file an additional submission, documents if any. c) To set aside the Demand of Tax, Interest and Levy of penalty which was imposed through an order dated 27.02.2025, which was passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, in FORM GST DRC-07 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021, bearing Ref No.ZD290225111378E and Annexed above as Annexure-B. d) Call for records and grant such other relief/s deems fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity. e) Grant such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the audit proceedings conducted by the respondents, the respondent No.2 issued an intimation under Section 73(5) of the CGST / KGST Act dated 15.11.2024, to which the petitioner did not submit any reply thereby leading to issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 under Section 73(1) of the CGST / KGST Act by respondent No.2, to which also the petitioner did not submit an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso he considered in response to Show Cave Notice issued u/s 73(1) of CGST/SGST Act,2017 along with supporting documents in substantiating his claim. However, your kind-selves have not bothered to capture or discuss in an impugned order Dated 27-05-2029 accordingly, ignored to consideration the submission filed in pursuant to Personal Hearing. The Applicants state that, the detailed explanation offered in the various hearing before the proper officer would have been considered as reply to the SCH BUA however, nothing has been discussed in the impugned order, hence, this request to rectification needs to be considered and rectified accordingly, after addressing all the allegations or averments or observations as noticed by your kind-selves along with supporting documents towards the following that- 1. Royalty Fees: 2. Transportation services: 3. Tax and Interest payable on indirect income declared in P&L account 4. Tax and Interest payable on Penalty & Fines declared in P&L account: 5. Details of unaccounted and suppressed tax liability as per E-way bill inward supply. 6. Details of unaccounted and suppressed tax liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner dated 17.1.2022 and 02.2.2022. Needless to say that principles of natural justice shall be followed, No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed. 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF INDICATURE AT MADRAS in the case of M Engineering Aids V/s State Tax Officer (Circle), held that: 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated: 05.04.2022 passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugn 2017 by the respondents on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner contends that even though they have sent a reply dated 25.02.2022 in Form GST DRC06 to the show cause notice issued by the respondents dated 17.02.2022 in Form GST DRC-01. the same has not been considered in the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 by the respondents 3. The petitioner has also contended that only a summary of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed under Form GST DRC-07 was served on him and not the detailed order. According to the petitioner, the said detailed order has also not been uploaded in the web portal of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. In view of the quashing of the impugned order, the consequential bank attachment notice issued to the 3rd respondent bank is also quashed. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI in the case of M/S BIBA 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 FASHION LTD V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS & ORS held that 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated: 26.12.2023 cannot be sustained and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re- adjudication. 10. Petitioner shall file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 Cause Notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a days from today. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the Show fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3) of the Act. 11. It is clarified that this Court has neit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while filing return not considered the transportation charges to discharge the GST under RCM, however, they are agreeable discharge the GST under RCM for transportation charges paid amounting to Rs.154947/- 3. Indirect income declared in P&L account The Applicant submit that they have discharged GST for commission amounting to Rs.1,69,500/- received from M/s.Jinkushal Industries P Ltd The copy of rectums is enclosed as Annexure-2. The Applicant submits that they are agreeable to discharge the GST on balance commission amounting to Rs.3.65,198/- received from M/s Vision infra. The Applicant submits that they declared other income of Rs.79,001/- in GST return for the month of March 2021 and discharged GST liability, the copy of the return is enclosed as Annexure-3. The Applicant submit that the return preparer inadvertently while filing return not considered the Stone Crusher income to discharge the GST however, they are agreeable discharge the GST on stone crusher income received amounting to Rs.24743/- 4. Tax and Interest payable on Penalty & Fines declared in P&L account: The Applicant submit that they are not agreeabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the provision under CUST / SGST Act, 2017 then this right to claim cannot be denied unless the input tax credit is blocked under section 179 where, it clarifies that the said ITC should not be linked or having no nexus with the furtherance of the business. In the present case the input tax credit claimed are well with in the eligible claim and the common credit in respect of exempted services have already reversed according to workings as provided by the statute. Therefore, the proposal of disallowing the ITC on basis of blocking credit may be withdrawn, The Applicant submit that on the basis of supra paras they availed and utilized input tax credit in the course of furtherance of business. Thus, business covers any transaction with commercial motive, irrespective or regardless there is profit motive in it and whether or not it is with or without any frequency and the definition of business is wide enough to cover any activities which has any ancillary nexus with the business. The Applicant also state that the expenses or purchases made are relatively used for the business only and no other non-related expenses or purchases made during the tax period and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that they entrusted some part of the work to their sub works executed and whereas the applicant raised invoice or bill with applicable tax rate @12% on the works executed to the Government as pe Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is enclosed as Annexure-7 The Applicant further submit that even assuming that the sub-contractors charges @18% based on the advice obtained from their consultants, in such scenario since such sub-contractors would have also discharged such taxes to the revenue and it is also obvious that such output taxes discharged by the sub-contractors would squarely eligible to claim as Input Tax Credit and the same had been claimed by the applicants. It is further to state that since the applicable tax rate on the government works @12% the demand @18% would be unjust-enrichment even in the hands of revenue. Therefore, they also humbly submit that they did not claimed any refund arises out of invert duty structure and to accept the above submission and also be rectified as it is mistake apparent from the records. In view of the above submission. The Applicant request your kind selves to consider above submission and rectify the summary of ....