9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner ought to have given a clear explanation - It is noticed that the table to the reply dated 26.02.2024, which has been extracted above gives an exaggerate figure. The Court cannot decide the correctness of the same. Prima facie it appears to be an credit tax position explained by the petitioner is incorrect as it is imposible to avail IGST amount of Rs. 37,22,528/-, each under CGST credit and SGST credit. Be that as it may, the Court is inclined to give temporary relief to the petitioner by directing the respondent to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance for a period of three months from today. The petitioner may at its discretion file a revision petition under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments within a period of 30 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence, in the form of a certificate from the supplier that the supplier had effected the supply in respect of the said invoices and tax on the supplies was actually been paid by the supplier in its Return in GSTR 3B as per the Circular No.183/2023. In view of the same, the reply filed by the petitioner on 27.04.2022 in response to the notice in Form ASMT-10 dated 27.11.2021, was unacceptable. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has explained the position in its reply dated 16.11.2023 as also in a subsequent reply dated 26.02.2024, wherein the details of Input Tax Credit availed and the carrying over IGST tax amount, that was transferred and unutilised, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, is Rs. 23,72,535/-. However, in the reply, the petitioner has claimed IGST amount of Rs. 37,22,528/- each under CGST credit and SGST credit. 13. It is noticed that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner for the period in dispute between 01.05.2018 to 30.04.2019 also indicates that there was only balance after adjustment. The petitioner ought to have given a clear explanation. 14. It is noticed that the table to the reply dated 26.02.2024, which has been extracted above gives an exaggerate figure. The Court cannot decide the correctness of the same. Prima facie it appears to be an credit tax position explained by the petitioner is incorrect as it is imposible to avail IGST amount of Rs. 37,22,528/-, each under CGST credit and SGS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
