TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount, and also a late fee of Rs.33,000/- was confirmed. 2. The brief facts are that for the Financial Year 2016-17, the appellant had declared a taxable value of Rs.2,10,15,666/- in their ST-3 returns, whereas their Form-26AS reflected gross receipts of Rs.2,68,49,396/-. Based on this third party data, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice No. C.No.I(CGST)20/TP-Sunny/Tech/Div-V/21-22/544 dated 12.10.2021 raising a demand for Rs.8,75,060/- alongwith interest and penalty. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the amount of Rs.17,23,348/- did not confirm with the challan no. cited by them. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had inadvertently mentioned an incorrect challan no. before the Commissioner (Appeals) and had infact filed a rectification application pointing out the said typographical error. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had rejected the contentions of the appellant. He submitted that it is trite that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural or clerical lapse, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner [1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC)]. He submitted that the entire adjudication was ex-parte which violated the principles of natural justice. He prayed that his appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned authorized representative submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the challan no. and the amount mentioned by the appellant did not tally with the amount claimed to have been paid. I find that it has been submitted that vide a rectification application dated 29.01.2024, the appellant had submitted that there was a clerical error in mentioning the correct challan no. The correct challan no. was 50226 dated 24.01.2018 for Rs.17,23,348/-, which was physically available on record. I also note that the differential value of Rs.58,33,730/- was substantially comprising; (i). Advances received from customers (Oriental University Group and Oppo entities) in Finance Year 2016-2017 on which TDS was deducted by the deductors and the service tax was discharged in the i....