9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amounts deposited by the taxpayer on 29.07.2022 nor have they granted the benefit of the said deposit, while issuing the proposed demand under Section 74(7) of the CGST Act. In Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer Ors. [ 2022 (12) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT] a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that not following the stipulated procedure would also lead to the conclusion that the payments were not voluntary. Whilst the petitioner has accepted that there was a mismatch in its return regarding the ITC, he did not acknowledge that the ITC was incorrectly availed. On the contrary, the Director of the petitioner had acknowledged that in case there was any tax liability, the same would be paid with interest and penalty. Admittedly, the respondents have not ascertained the said liability and no notice has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules communicating the details of any tax, interest or liability as ascertained - the petitioner s contention is accepted that the payments made by it were not voluntary payments but under compelling circumstances. The respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor (Sh. Deepak Goel S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel) was coerced by the visiting team officers of respondent no. 1 into depositing an amount of ₹25,20,000/- under GST DRC-03 dated 29.07.2022 and ₹3,00,000 under GST DRC-03 dated 30.07.2022. The breakup of payment of the aforementioned amounts is as follows: S.No. Amount (₹) Mode of Payment (Ledger Utilised) Date and time of payment Method of payment 1. 20,70,000/- Cash 29.07.2022 at 11:49 pm DRC-03 2. 3,00,000/- Cash 30.07.2022 at 12:38 am DRC-03 3. 4,50,000 Input Tax Credit 29.07.2022 at 11:49pm DRC-03 6. The statement of Mr. Deepak Goel, Director of M/s Neeraj Paper Marketing Limited, was recorded on 29.07.2022. He acknowledged that there was a mismatch of ₹60,00,000/- in GSTR 2A/3B during the financial year 2018-2019 and ₹20,00,000/- in the year 2019-2020. He furnished a reconciliation statement for the period of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, and undertook that the tax liability, if any, along with interest and penalty would be paid, in case there was any tax liability arising out of the mismatch in the two returns. 7. The petitioner, by letter dated 13.12.2022, requested respondent no. 2, to refund the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice of notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment. (6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (7) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable. 11. The scheme under Section 74 of the CGST Act is also somewhat similar except that a taxpayer is required to pay the tax, interest, as well as the penalty to the extent of 15% to absolve itself of any further liability in respect of penalty. Sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Section 74 of the CGST Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote that although, the show cause notices indicate that the petitioner had deposited the tax and penalty on 29.07.2022, the quantum of proposed demand did not provide for any credit for the same. It is apparent that such show cause notices are in terms of Section 74(7) of the CGST Act inasmuch as they are not limited to the amount which falls short of the amount payable after accounting for the tax deposited. 14. Thus, the respondents have neither acknowledged the amounts deposited by the taxpayer on 29.07.2022 nor have they granted the benefit of the said deposit, while issuing the proposed demand under Section 74(7) of the CGST Act. 15. In Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4508, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that not following the stipulated procedure would also lead to the conclusion that the payments were not voluntary. 16. The contention that the petitioner had acknowledged the liability as reflected in the statement of its Director (Sh. Deepak Goel) recorded on the said date is also unpersuasive. The relevant extract of the said statement is set out below: 9. That there is mismatch of Rs. 0.6 Cr/-in GSTR 2A/3B during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
