9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to pay to IGST on the goods supplied from SEZ unit to DTA. The petitioner has not claimed any refund for such IGST paid, which otherwise was payable by DTA Unit. Therefore, there is no liability of the petitioner to pay the IGST under the provisions of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with GST Act. The respondent No. 2 has failed to consider the same and passed the impugned order merely on account of the difference between in form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B ignoring the provisions of Section 74 which provides the mechanism of adjudication of show cause notice by taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner as well as the provisions of the Act. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the petitioner is having a Free Trade Warehousing Zone Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The petitioner is also registered under the provisions of Central / State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the GST Act ). The ordinary tax is required to be paid along with monthly return in Form GSTR-3B as per Rule 61 of the Central / State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Rule). If the goods are required to be cleared from SEZ Unit to Domestic Tariff Area Unit, then customs duty as well as Integrity Goods and Service Tax (IGST) is required to be paid before clearance of the goods in accordance with the provisions of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (for short the SEZ Act ). 4. It is the case of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed reply again explaining the difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The respondent No. 2 however, without considering the reply of the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 05.02.2022 to demand tax with interest and penalty ignoring the IGST paid by the petitioner by TR-6 challan. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 05.02.2022, we are unable to find any reason assigned by the respondent No. 2 to raise the demand of Rs. 1,63,16,101/- under Section 74 of the GST Act, except the bare statement that but no reply or evidences has been provided from your side. Therefore, the order as per sub section (9) of Section 74 is being issued xxxxxxxx 9. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3-GST and Net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovides the mechanism of adjudication of show cause notice by taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner as well as the provisions of the Act. 12. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, an attempt is made to justify the impugned order which lacks any reasoning. The deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, has tried to improve upon the impugned order by referring to Section 37 of the GST Act to contend that as per Section 37 of the GST Act furnishing the details of the output supply is required to be declared in GSTR-1 and as per Section 39 of the GST Act, the payment of tax declared in GSTR-1 is to be same as to be paid in Form GSTR-3B return and therefore if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
