9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 4. Since issues arising in these petitions are identical, for the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No. 15930/2024. 5. The petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short "the GST Act") and are engaged in providing construction services. 6. In the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 01.04.2023 for the same period reiterating the same grounds proposing the demand of tax on the difference between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. 12. Thereafter the impugned order-in-original dated 12.05.2023 was passed observing that reply of the petitioners was not satisfactory. 13. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the passing of the order-in-original which was uploaded on the GST portal as the same was handled by consultant of the petitioners who was facing serious health issues in the family and could not inform the petitioners about the impugned order so as to enable the petitioners to file appeal under the provisions of section 107 of the GST Act within the statutory prescribed period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1 and Form GSTR-3B and the explanation tendered by the petitioners is brushed aside coupled with the fact that in the Annual Return in Form GSTR-9, there is no difference and reconciliation was provided by the petitioners. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned show cause notice and order-in-original are liable to be quashed and set aside. 18. It was submitted that the appellate authority ought to have considered the grounds to condone the delay in the facts of the case as consultant of the petitioners could not inform about passing of the impugned order and the petitioners were therefore prevented by sufficient cause for not filing appeal. 19. It was therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Form GST ASMT 11. It was pointed out that show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2022 and reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioners after a year on 17.03.2023 which shows that the petitioners have remained negligent in proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities under section 73 of the Act. It was further submitted that the respondents have passed a detailed order in Form GST DRC-07 explaining the difference between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B resulting into short payment of tax considering Form GSTR-1 as the correct supply in case of the petitioners for the period under consideration. 23. It was further submitted that the petitioners therefore, ought to have challenged the order-in-original in Form GST DRC-07 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
