9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax proposal pertains to turnover difference, the difference between the turnover as per the profit and loss account and the turnover as per the GSTR 9 should have been taken into consideration. To that extent, the impugned order calls for interference. The explanation of the petitioner that it was unaware of proceedings cannot be accepted especially in view of the petitioner being a large corporate entity. However, substantial liability was imposed on the petitioner without taking into consideration documents on record such as the GSTR 9C reconciliation statement. When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand, albeit on terms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inviting my attention to the show cause notice, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was called upon to show cause in respect of an aggregate tax proposal of Rs.12,56,99,874.83. In contrast, he submits that the confirmed tax proposal under the impugned order is for a sum of Rs.78,23,18,587/-. His next contention is with regard to the issue pertaining to turnover difference between the petitioner's annual return in Form GSTR 9 and the profit and loss account of the petitioner. He points out that the respondent noticed that the total turnover as per the profit and loss account was in the region of Rs.200 crore. Instead of reckoning the difference between such turnover and the turnover as per the GSTR 9, he submits that the first re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substance. He further submits that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits and that a large corporate entity, such as the petitioner, cannot be heard to state that it was unaware of such proceedings. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent added the total turnover as per the profit and loss account and the turnover as per the annual return in GSTR 9. As a consequence, tax was computed on the sum of Rs.330 crore. Since the tax proposal pertains to turnover difference, the difference between the turnover as per the profit and loss account and the turnover as per the GSTR 9 should have been taken into consideration. To that extent, the impugned order calls for inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
