9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt dated 19.09.2022 and the reply dated 26.10.2022. Although the inspection report and the findings of the inspection officer were adverted to in the impugned order, the petitioner's responses in the course of inspection do not find mention therein. It also appears that the tax proposals were confirmed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments. As regards assessment period 2019-20, on examining the order, with regard to defect no.2 relating to the mismatch between purchase value as per GSTR 2A and aggregate value of e-way bills, the tax dues as per the e-way bill was Rs. 4,01,89,368/-, whereas, it was Rs. 4,15,51,852/- as per GSTR 2A. Liability, if any, should have been imposed on the difference between these two figures, which amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner submitted replies and enclosed documents. Thereafter, pursuant to the findings of the inspection officer, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Upon receipt thereof, the petitioner requested for further time on about two or three occasions. The impugned orders were issued in these facts and circumstances. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner filed rectification petitions by asserting that there are errors apparent. Such rectification petitions were not acted upon. The present writ petitions were filed in the said facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the responses to the queries raised in the course of inspection. He submits that these responses were not taken into consideration while issuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the findings of the processing officer (i.e. the inspection officer) were extracted in the impugned order and that, eventually, the findings of the proper officer were recorded briefly in a table at the foot of the order. He contends that the proper officer was under an obligation to independently apply his mind and not proceed entirely on the basis of the findings of the inspection officer. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgments of this Court in Farida Leather Company v. Commercial Tax Officer , 2020 82 GSTR 452 (Mad) and Tarun Creation v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2020) 82 GSTR 449 (Mad) . He also relies upon Circluar No.12/2022 dated 26.09.2022 with regard to the grant of reasonable time to file a reply and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2022. Although the inspection report and the findings of the inspection officer were adverted to in the impugned order, the petitioner's responses in the course of inspection do not find mention therein. It also appears that the tax proposals were confirmed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments. 9. As regards assessment period 2019-20, on examining the order, with regard to defect no.2 relating to the mismatch between purchase value as per GSTR 2A and aggregate value of e-way bills, the tax dues as per the e-way bill was Rs. 4,01,89,368/-, whereas, it was Rs. 4,15,51,852/- as per GSTR 2A. Liability, if any, should have been imposed on the difference between these two figures, which amounts to Rs. 13,62,400/-. The petitioner ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
