Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... trictions, the petitioner could not run the business successfully as they did before, which resulted in the goods being stagnated in the godowns, and that since the petitioner is carrying out the manufacturing process as a Job Worker, the final products manufactured for the third party has to be stored in the deep freezer facility installed in the petitioner's business premises till the final products are supplied to the principal suppliers, viz., Co-operatives Societies, i.e. for 200 MT under (-20 degree Celsius) for which purpose, the petitioner has to run the plant for 24 hours for storage of the goods under -20 degree Celsius, which contributed to the excess consumption of electricity, and despite the fact that the said aspect was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her and disposed of vide this Common Order at the stage of admission itself. 3. Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been issued with show cause notice dated 02.03.2024 notifying 10 defects, the petitioner, on receipt of the said show cause notice, filed replies dated 04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024 in the GST Portal, answering to each defects, based on which, the respondent passed Assessment Orders dated 25.06.2024, under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, whereby, proposals to recover tax with regard to 7 defects were dropped, and in respect of two defects, which were accepted by the petitioner and tax was paid, penalty alone was imposed, however, so far as one defect is concerned, viz., defect No.8, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said vital aspect and passed the impugned orders, that too, in the absence of any contrary evidence produced to substantiate the alleged suppression of sale. Hence, the learned counsel contended that the impugned orders are totally non-speaking orders and suffers from violation of principles of natural, as the petitioner has not been afforded with any opportunity of being heard before passing the same, and therefore, prayed for remanding the matter to the respondent for re-consideration insofar as it relates to defect No.8 alone is concerned. 4. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent would submit that on verification of EB details and the taxable turnover produced by the petitioner for the assessment year 201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 024, notifying 10 defects. The petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice, filed reply, answering to each defects along with supporting documents. The respondent, based on the said reply passed Assessment Orders dated 25.06.2024, under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, whereby, the proposals to recover tax with regard to 7 defects were dropped, and in respect of two defects, pertaining to which, tax liability was accepted by the petitioner and tax was paid, penalty alone was imposed, however, so far as one defect is concerned, viz., defect No.8, the respondent confirmed the proposed tax on the alleged outward suppression of taxable turnover along with interest and equal amount of penalty. 7. Aggrieved against the said impugned orders, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the period subject period with supporting documents, the respondent failed to consider the said vital aspect and passed the impugned orders. 8.1 In fact, this Court also feels that the respondent ought to have taken into consideration of the aforesaid vital aspect before passing the impugned orders, with regard to Defect No.8, in the absence of any contrary evidence available to substantiate the alleged suppression of sale, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders, insofar as it relates to Defect No.8 alone is concerned. 9. Accordingly, this Court passes the following orders:- i) The impugned orders dated 25.06.2024 are set aside, insofar as it concerns .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates