9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department for the respondent no. 2. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 [Annexure-1] issued by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner asking the petitioner inter alia to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 41,92,50,000/- towards CGST and SGST, in equal proportion, should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner under Section 74[1] of the CGST Act, 2017 and Corresponding provisions of the SGST Act, 2017 and the IGST Act, 2017 along with interest, etc. for evasion of GST pertaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been made the basis of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Agenda item no. 13[iv] of the 22nd GST Council Meeting, held on 06.10.2017, to submit that in the said GST Council Meeting, discussion was made as regards toll and annuity. The GST Counsel Meeting has observed that while toll is a payment made by users of road to concessionaries for usage of roads, annuity is an amount paid by National Highways Authority of India [NHAI] to concessionaires for construction of roads. It has been clarified that annuity is a consideration for the service provided by concessionaires to NHAI. A view was suggested in the said GST Council Meeting to exempt annuity paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the annuity is payable to the concessionaires in lieu of toll charges. Attention has been drawn to a Notification dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India under sub-section [1] and sub-section [3] of Section 11 of the CGST Act, 2017 whereby Entry 23A and the entries relating thereto have been omitted w.e.f. 01.01.2023. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after the Notification dated 30.12.2022 has been paying the necessary dues. It has been contended that in any view of the matter, the Circular dated 17.06.2021 could not have been given any prospective effect, which has been done in the impugned Demand-cum- Show Cause Notice. 6. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
