9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ird respondents impugned orders are perused. These authorities have elaborately referred to the provisions of IGST Act as also the CGST/KGST Act and they have also referred to the details of the recipient establishments. There is obvious reference in the impugned orders to the details furnished by the petitioner after being served with the notice in GST DRC-02, but the proceedings are concluded in the premise that the petitioner has raised Invoices without mentioning the necessary details. This Court must opine that this consideration in the peculiarities of the case will not suffice, and if it is undisputed that the recipient establishments are based in Delhi, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner s supply [imparting of traini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the impugned order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 computing the petitioner s liability in a total sum of Rs. 25,08,56,456/- [total tax payable of Rs. 22,80,51,322/- with penalty in a sum of Rs. 2,28,05,134/-], the petitioner has filed its appeal under Section 107(11) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 with the third respondent. This appeal is disposed of on 30.09.2023. The petitioner in availing appellate remedy has made pre-deposit of 10% of the amount asserted as due. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner, during the aforesaid period from 2018-19 to 2021-22, has offered Bulk Simulator Training Services to the Helicopter pilots from Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian Navy and other defence establishments including some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecipient establishments which had PAN/TAN, while the supplies made to the recipient establishments with PAN are reduced, the proceedings relating to TAN are continued; and that even otherwise, the petitioner is bona fide in not mentioning the GSTIN obtained by the recipient organizations, as mentioned in paragraphs 74 and 75 of the memorandum of petition. 6. Sri. Dakshina Murthy R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the above contentions, submits that if the necessary details such as TAN and the actual place of supply can be discerned from the records, the second and third respondent could not have denied the benefit of exemption vide Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 citing Section 12(5)(d) of the IGST Act, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning the necessary details. This Court must refer to the conclusions by the third respondent on this aspect and it reads as under: 3. From the above relevant sections/rules mentioned regarding the content/particulars of tax invoice or bill of supply there is no format prescribed, however, rules make it mandatory for a tax invoice or bill of supply to must/shall have fields on the face it. 4. Therefore, it can be observed from the above-mentioned relevant provisions of the GST Act which makes it mandatory for the supply of goods or services or both to follow prescribed details shall be apparently exist on the tax invoice or bill of supply. 5. Impliedly, if any of the prescribed particulars are not present on the tax invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
