9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. The other discrepancies based on the difference between the GSTR returns and the financial statements may also require reconsideration since the financial statements appear to be prima facie prepared on All India basis. Since the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings in spite of being provided several opportunities, it is just and necessary to put the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice, including the quantification made in the impugned order, within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were confirmed for an aggregate sum of Rs. 6,65,76,994/-. By referring to Section 73 of applicable GST enactments, learned counsel contends that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to indicate the proposed tax liability in respect of each head dealt with in the show cause notice. 3. Without prejudice to this contention, learned counsel pointed out that the balance tax demand in the impugned order pertains to the disparity between the turnover as reported in the petitioner's returns in comparison with the profit and loss statement. He pointed out that the turnover reported in the petitioner's returns pertain to the State of Tamil Nadu. Such turnover was Rs. 11,78,63,417/-, whereas the All India turnover was reported in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x proposals. 5. On perusal of the show cause notice, it appears that all the heads of claim were dealt with therein, but quantification was done only in respect of two discrepancies (discrepancy nos. 1 2). The impugned order discloses that discrepancy nos.3, 6, 7 and 11 were based on a comparison of the profit and loss account and the petitioner's GSTR returns. As regards discrepancy no.3, a comparison was made between the turnover reported in the GSTR returns of Rs. 11,78,34,420/- and that disclosed in the profit and loss account of Rs. 43,95,66,187/-. The profit and loss account appears prima facie to have been prepared on All India basis. While the petitioner failed to provide a trial balance in respect of Tamil Nadu or an auditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
