9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed to be a voluntary payment by the petitioner, it should be seen that the petitioner had attempted to evade payment of tax which is liable to be taxed and only pursuant to the inspection effected by the respondent, the petitioner had submitted himself for payment of tax and hence, the same cannot be said to be a voluntary payment and has been made only to wriggle out of the penal consequences. This conduct of the petitioner to evade tax will also fall under suppression and fraudulent activities envisaged under Section 74 of the GST Act. Hence, the contention that Section 74 cannot have been invoked against the petitioner cannot be countenanced. A perusal of the orders in original, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority would clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritable trust having registered office at Karur. Under the said trust petitioner runs a marriage hall under the name and style of M/s. Prem Mahal at Kovai Road. He submits that the petitioner registered as service provider under CGST Act w.e.f. 14.02.2020. 4. He contends that the CGST department preventive unit visited marriage hall on 23.01.2020 and asked to handover entire accounts and records. Hence, the manager of the petitioner submitted the same. Further, on summon the petitioner submitted ITR, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account upto 31.03.2019 along with bank statement of the Trust and Trustees. Moreover, the petitioner specifically stated that some amounts are reimbursable to the persons concerned. 5. He submits that on per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing balance GST liability of Rs. 10,60,852/- along with interest and full amount of GST liability as penalty ie.Rs. 69,54,554/-. Thereby, the second respondent invoking Section 74 (1) of CGST Act rejected the petitioner claim of cum tax basis benefit was rejected. He expostulates that the second respondent had not even established the petitioner involved in fraud or willfull misstatement or suppression of facts available to invoke section 74 (1) of CGST Act. 7. He submits that against the order in original, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner contend that tax element is included in the total value of taxable supply and petitioner is entitled to arrive GST liability applying cum tax basis under Rule 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner seeks the interference of this court in the order in original and the order in Appeal. 10. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner was rendering taxable activities such as renting of marriage hall and other related taxable supply. Based on specific intelligence, an investigation was caused in the petitioner premises on 23.01.2020 by the Preventive Unit. Thereby it is found that the petitioner neither registered with the GST Department nor discharged the GST liability. He submits that as per Section 22 (1) CGST Act, 2017, Tax payer must have registered themselves with GST Dept w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Further, he submits that based on incriminati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. He further contends that Show cause notice was properly issued since because the petitioner not paid the full GST liability along with interest and penalty. He expostulates that as per section 73 (8) of CGST Act, no penalty shall be levied since the petitioner has already discharged the full tax liability which is false and misleading. He further submits that the petitioner neither produced any evidence to prove the amount collected was inclusive of taxes nor the formal agreement was entered with their clients to treat under cum-tax value. 13. He contends that the petitioner had received huge amount of rents without obtaining GST registration, not paid GST, not filed statutory GST returns during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im against the petitioner had arisen of its own failure to register itself under the GST Act as required under law. Only pursuant thereto, the petitioner had remitted the tax that he is liable to pay. Even though, such action is claimed to be a voluntary payment by the petitioner, it should be seen that the petitioner had attempted to evade payment of tax which is liable to be taxed and only pursuant to the inspection effected by the respondent, the petitioner had submitted himself for payment of tax and hence, the same cannot be said to be a voluntary payment and has been made only to wriggle out of the penal consequences. This conduct of the petitioner to evade tax will also fall under suppression and fraudulent activities envisaged under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
