9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the petitioner from various Departments for execution of the work contracts was not tallying with the turnover reported through GSTR 3B returns. Basing on such observation, he issued a notice in Form DRC-01A and called for the explanation of the petitioner which was submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.2020. In the explanation, his submission was that the variation between the payments received and the turnover mentioned in the returns was because of the fact that the payments made to him were only part payments and not complete bills. With reference to the aforesaid explanation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent observed that the petitioner has not submitted the bills raised on the Department in support of his claim of amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notice dated 23.01.2020 under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April, 2018 March, 2019 claiming an amount of ₹ 15,69,002/- towards estimated tax payable with 6% interest basing on the data provided by the Comprehensive Financial Management System (CFMS) alleging that the payments received by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent were not tallying with the turnover reported through GST returns. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.02.2020 with the available information clearly mentioning therein the reason for the difference. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering the explanation and giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, straight away issued summary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. 5. Learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order and argued that the said order was passed only after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and that there is no flaw in the said order. 6. As can be seen, the main observation of the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 is that the data projected in CFMS relating to payments received by the petitioner from various Departments for execution of the work contracts was not tallying with the turnover reported through GSTR 3B returns. Basing on such observation, he issued a notice in Form DRC-01A and called for the explanation of the petitioner which was submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the reasons why he could not produce the relevant bills before the 2nd respondent. 7. On a conspectus of the above facts, we are of the considered view that an opportunity should be accorded to the petitioner to present his case before the 2nd respondent. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent with a direction that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity to him to present the relevant information in support of his contention, and consider the same and pass an appropriate order afresh in accordance with the governing law and rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
