9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as requested to submit certain documents, inter alia, including profit and loss account, income tax return, Form 26AS, output service bills, explanation and clarification for the mismatches in reporting different value of services provided to different tax authorities for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. It is not in dispute that the payment had been disbursed in favour of the petitioner by the PWD as would corroborate from the documents appearing at pages 42 and 43 of the writ petition dated 1st September, 2016. The aforesaid ought to have been considered by the authorised officer. To the extent of the non-consideration of the aforesaid by glossing over the payment certificate and refusing to accept the payment certificates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid show cause is barred by limitation. Independent of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the petitioner had executed Government contracts, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Mega Exemption Notification dated 20th June, 2012 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 93 (1) of the said Act. 4. By drawing attention of this Court to the payment certificate, appearing at pages 42 and 43 of the writ petition, it is submitted that despite the Executive Engineer, Diamond Harbour Division and the Additional Accounts Officer confirming the factum of payments made by issuing payment certificates on 1st September, 2016, in respect of the works executed by the petitioner, the same ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as noted hereinabove, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST CX on 29th February, 2024 cannot be said to be irregular. 9. By drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 6.1 of the said order dated 29th February, 2024 it is submitted that the hearing of the show cause notice had been assigned by the Chief Commissioner to the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 16th November, 2022. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner had taken up the matter and as such there cannot be any jurisdictional error on the part of the Additional Commissioner in passing the adjudication order. In the facts noted above, no interference is called for. 10. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner did not submit output service bills as asked for verification with the work order. Since, the petitioner failed to submit the original work order for verifying the authenticity of the same, the authorized officer had refused to accept the contractual price received by petitioner for the work orders. It is, however, not in dispute that the payment had been disbursed in favour of the petitioner by the PWD as would corroborate from the documents appearing at pages 42 and 43 of the writ petition dated 1st September, 2016. The aforesaid, in my view, ought to have been considered by the authorised officer. To the extent of the non-consideration of the aforesaid by glossing over the payment certificate and refusing to accept the payment certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
