9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 / Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act, 2017. The Petitioner is also registered under the provisions of the CGST Act of 2017 / Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The Petitioner was also registered as a service provider under the erstwhile regime before GST. The Petitioner was paying Maharashtra Value Added Tax on the sale of goods and filing monthly returns. The Petitioner had submitted its monthly return. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner noticed a discrepancy in the return filed in June 2017, and the Petitioner filed a revised return for the period June 2017 under section 20(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act, 2002. 3. After the GST regime was brought into force, the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST regime was denied. Challenging this order and notice dated 18 September 2019, the Petitioner is before us. 5. We have heard Mr. Bharat Raichandani, the leaned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.V.A. Sonpal, the learned Special Counsel for the Respondents. 6. As regards the notice dated 18 September 2019 issued under Rule 142(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the learned Special Counsel for the Respondents points out that show cause notice dated 18 September 2019 was not taken further, and the relevant notice is one dated 21 June 2022 issued under Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Rules, 2005 in Form 309 upon which the impugned order is passed. In view of this clarification, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Counsel for the Respondents sought to argue that apart from the Circular, the statute would demonstrate that the Petitioner is not entitled to set of. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the statutory scheme would show that the Petitioner is entitled to set of and that this statute as it stands does not make any distinction between the regular return and revised return, and the circular being beyond the scope of the statute should not be relied upon apart from the reliance on the Circular No. 35A. 10. The arguments advanced before us are entirely different from the foundation of the impugned order, which has solely relied upon the Circular. Considering the nature of the power, as we have referred to above, the order sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
