9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to any of the contentious issues and respondent no.2 s analysis on the same. It merely mentions that the demand raised in the SCN is confirmed. The impugned order is bereft of any reasons. It is also apparent that the Adjudicating Authority/respondent no.2 has failed to consider the contentious issues. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for considering afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Jain and Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Udit Malik, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD along with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocates for R-1 and R-2. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o its receipts as reflected in its bank statements. It is the petitioner s case that it held separate registrations in respect of its offices and had filed separate returns in respect of each registration. However, the bank account was common. 7. Paragraph 7 of the reply to the SCN reads as under:- 7. Less revenue disclosed in GST return in comparison to bank statements : It has been further observed by the special auditor and alleged by your good self that there is difference of INR 815,19,62,101/- between total receipts as credited in bank account of the Company and outward supplied reported in GST returns for the State of Delhi. Based on the said difference, your good self has raised a tax demand amounting to INR 146,73,53,178/- along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had raised tax demand on differential amount. The matter was heard by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, wherein the Court had quashed the demand order and observed that: 5. On examining the impugned order, I find that the assessing officer has accepted the explanation of the petitioner with regard to certain defects. As regards defect No. 10, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessing officer has recorded findings without applying his mind to the fact that the turnover for an entity operating in multiple States in India, as reflected in the financial statements, and the turnover attributable to its operations in Tamil Nadu would vary. From the findings, it also appears that tax liability was imposed merely because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the taxpayer and found there is no substantial fact to counter the observation of the auditor who has conducted Special Audit under section 66 of GST Act. And whereas, the undersigned with the consider opinion that the observations/facts derived during the course of audit must be confirmed. 10. It is apparent from the above that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons. It is also apparent that the Adjudicating Authority/respondent no.2 has failed to consider the contentious issues. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is so directed. 12. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for considering afresh. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the reply and the additional submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
