9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODARAN NAMBOODIRI, SRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI FOR THE RESPONDENT: DR. THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER JUDGMENT D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.33787 of 2023 is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant that the show cause notice did not specifically refer to the provisions of Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act but had proceeded on the assumption that what the appellant was liable to was only a penalty under Section 73(8) of the CGST/SGST Act, which, on the facts of the instant case, did not apply. 3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that the Assessing A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment Pleader for the respondents. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. Hrithwik, the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in confirming the demand of penalty which was impugned in the writ petition. In particular, it is contended that Ext.P1 notice issued to the appellant mentioned only the possibility of a penalty under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with the returns filed by the appellant, the appellant had failed to include the tax amounts covered by the invoices considered by the Assessing Authority for the issuance of the demand for differential tax, and it was under those circumstances that the demand for differential tax came to be made as against the appellant. While it may be a fact that Ext.P1 notice issued to the appellant did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
