9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the third item in the demand notice, which arises out of wrong availing of ITC credit by the petitioner, the first respondent had recorded the factual finding that the petitioner had reversed the wrong claim even as early as on 28.02.2021 in their GSTR-3B for the month of February, 2020. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent had categorically admitted that the petitioner had reversed the said wrongly availed ITC, however had expressed his inability, as the portal would not permit such reversal. The said reason given by the second respondent is wholly unacceptable. He ought not to have included the said demand when the first respondent himself had ordered such reversal to be treated as a payment under Section 73 of the CGST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be treated as payment under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. When that be so, the DRC-07 notice including the said amount by the second respondent is wholly erroneous and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray this Court to set aside the said portion of the DRC- 07 notice. With regard to the other two documents, she would submit that the petitioner had proposed to invoke the amnesty that had been provided by the Department. 4. Countering such argument, Mr.R.Nandakumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, had vehemently contended that there was no error in including the said amount to the demand notice. Even if it is a wrong demand, he would submit that it is for the petitioner to file an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent had also ordered that the wrongly availed ITC of Rs. 3,76,67,083/-, which was paid/reversed subsequently by the petitioner in its GSTR-3B, was to be treated as payment under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. When that be so, the petitioner had been again demanded in the DRC-07 notice to pay the said amount together with interest. Even though the learned standing counsel had strenuously relying upon the counter affidavit tried to sustain the DRC-07 notice, I do not find any averment specifically sustaining the said demand. 9. In fact, in the counter affidavit, the second respondent had categorically admitted that the petitioner had reversed the said wrongly availed ITC, however had expressed his inability, as the portal would not pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
