+91 9540 002 186
+91 7289 800 700
[email protected]
Taxo logo
shopping_basket
Product has been added to your cart.
Print

Demand of liability for GST on ITC availed difference in table 8D of GSTR-9

APL 01

—————————

Form GST APL-01

[See rule 108(1)]

                                              Appeal to Appellate Authority

1. GSTIN  
2. Legal name of the appellant –
3. Trade name, if any –
4. Address  for communication xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 5. Order No  and  Order date Order-in-Original No.DRC-07-Reference No dated 29.12.2023-/SCN- Statement Reference No.
6. Designation and address of the officer passing the order appealed against – Deputy  Commissioner of State Tax , 

Division-1 ,

 
7. Date of communication of the order appealed against – DRC-07 uploaded on ——  .
8. Name of the authorized representative and address for communication  –                                                                         

—
9. Details of the case under dispute – Demand of liability for GST on ITC availed difference in table 8D of GSTR-9
(i) Brief issue of the case under dispute – In the DRC 01 there was no proposal to disallow ITC due to 8D difference – it was mentioned in DRC01 that Serial No. 4,5,6,9,10,11 in ASMT 10  needs to be verified with proper supporting documents. Sr.No 4 in ASMT 10 states that “In GSTR-9 part III.8 Sr.No (D) Difference needs to be verified”. Though documents were submitted and difference explained the ITC is disallowed for the reason that reply submitted was not acceptable. Penalty (IGST) was also imposed. More details submitted in Statement of facts
(ii) Description and classification of  goods / services in dispute – Not Applicable
(iii) Period of dispute 2017-18 FY

(2017July to March 2018)
(iv)   Amount  under dispute  §  GST – ITC disallowed Rs361999

§ Penalty 36200/-Interest 386599   
Description Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess
(a) Tax/Cess 00 00 3,61,999

 

 00
(b) Interest 3438 9555 3,73,606 00
(c) Penalty 36200 00
(d) Fees N A N A N A N A
(e) Other charges N A N A N A N A
(v)   Market value of seized goods         Not Applicable           
10 Whether the appellant wishes to be heard in person –   Yes / No
11 Statement of facts :- Separately  Stated
12 Grounds  of appeal :- Separately  Stated
13 Prayer :- Separately  Stated
14 Amount of demand created,

admitted and disputed

 Amount disputed  : Rs3,61,999

Amount of demand created, Admitted and disputed –

Particulars of demand/refund Particulars Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess Total amount
Amount of demand created (A) (a) Tax/Cess  3,61,999  N A N A N A
(b) Interest 3438 9555 373606 N A
(c) Penalty 36200 N A
(d) Fees 00 00 00 N A
(e) Other charges NA NA NA N A
Amount of demand admitted (B) (a) Tax/Cess  N A  N A  N A  N A N A N A
(b) Interest  N A  N A  N A N A
(c) Penalty  N A  N A  N A N A
(d) Fees  N A  N A  N A N A
(e) Other charges N A N A N A N A
Amount of demand disputed (C) (a) Tax/Cess 00 00 361999 00 N A N A
(b) Interest 3438 9555  373606 N A
(c) Penalty 00 00 36200 N A
(d) Fees 00 00 00 00 N A
(e) Other charges 00 00 00 00 N A
 

15. Details of payment of admitted amount and pre-deposit:-  
(a) Details of payment required –
Particulars Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess Total amount
(a) Admitted amount Tax/Cess  N A

 

 

 

 

NA

  N A

 

 

 

 

NA

  N A

 

 

 

 

NA

  N A

 

 

 

 

NA

 N A N A
Interest N A
Penalty N A
Fees N A
Other charges N A
(b) Pre-deposit (10% of disputed tax/cess but not exceeding Rs. 25 crore each in respect of CGST, SGST or cess, or not exceeding Rs. 50 crore in respect of IGST and Rs. 25 crore in respect of cess) Tax/Cess 00 00 36200 00  

 

 

N A
(b) Details of payment of admitted amount and pre-deposit (pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax and cess but not exceeding Rs. 25 crore each in respect of CGST, SGST or cess, or not exceeding Rs. 50 crore in respect of IGST and Rs. 25 crore in respect of cess)  :   
Sr. No. Description Tax payable Paid through Cash/Credit Ledger Debit entry no. Amount of tax paid
Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax CESS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Integrated tax N.A. Cash Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. Credit Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
2. Central tax N.A. Cash Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. Credit Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
3. State/UT tax N.A. Cash Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. Credit Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
4. CESS N.A. Cash Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. Credit Ledger N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
(c) Interest, penalty, late fee and any other amount payable and paid :  Not paid 
Sr. No. Description Amount payable Debit entry no. Amount paid
Integrated tax Central tax State/UT tax CESS Integrated tax Central tax State/ UT tax CESS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Interest   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.
2. Penalty   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.
3. Late fee   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.
4. Others
(specify)		   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.   N.A.
16. Whether appeal is being filed after the prescribed period -No – within the time limit of  90 days from the date of receipt of order.  
 

17.

 If ‘Yes’ in item 17 –
(a) Period of delay –        N A
(b) Reasons for delay –   N A
18. Place of supply wise details of the integrated tax paid (admitted amount only) mentioned in the Table in sub-clause (a) of clause 15 (item (a)), if any:  N.A.
Place of Supply (Name of State/UT) Demand Tax Interest Penalty Other Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Admitted amount [in the Table in sub-clause (a) of clause 15 (item (a))] N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A

 Continued on next page………

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. This appeal is filed by M/s. ………………………….. Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the impugned order-in-original No DRC-07-Reference …………………………..dated 29.12.2023-/ (hereinafter referred to as “OIO”) passed by Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Head Office GST Bhavan , Nava Raipur Atal Nagar …………………………………….. (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) wherein the learned Respondent has confirmed the:
  2. demand of GST amounting to Rs3,61,999 for GSTR-9 Table 8D difference of ITC .
  3. demand of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act 2017 and SGST Act 2017 amounting to Rs 3,86,599 on the amount of confirmed demand mentioned at (a) above .
  4. penalty Rs36,200 (IGST) under Section 73(9) of Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act 2017

Factual position leading to the Show Cause Notice and the Adjudication order

1.1     The Appellant, is a multi-locational registered unit having Regd. Office at …………………………………… Kerala and having Principal Place of Business at ………………………………………….., in the State of having GST registration No: ………………………….. .The Appellant’s major business income consists of income from gold loan business, income from money transfer business and purchase and sale of foreign currency.  On the value of output services taxable, GST was paid under forward charge and on notified items GST was paid under reverse charge method, if there were such expenses. The Appellant was entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of GST paid on goods and services purchased, which can be set off against the GST liability of the respective registration.  Appellants used file monthly GST returns GSTR-1, GSTR-3B , Annual Return in GSTR-9,  and reconciliation statement in GSTR-9C.  As per GST law, if ITC was not availed during a financial year, ITC was permitted to be availed up to 30th of September of the subsequent financial year .  For the year 2017-18 the time limit for availing the ITC was extended up to 31st March 2019.  The ITC availed in the subsequent financial year has to be reported at Part – III, Table – 8C and Table -13 of GSTR-9. For the financial year 2017-18, the ITC availed during 2018-19 was reported at Table 8C and Table-13 of GSTR-9.  The amount of ITC reported at Table 8C and Table-13 had gone wrong with different figures reporting in Table-8C and 13 which is an apparent error in GSTR-9 uploaded. The amount of ITC reported at Table-8C was CGSTRs.14,22,864.06 ,  SGST Rs.14,22,864.06, IGSTRs.4,36,017.44  and the amount of ITC reported at Table-13 was CGST 1,04,969.07, SGST 1,04,969.07 and IGST 1,24,157.06 were factually wrong as a result of which Table-8D in the GSTR-9 resulted in  a negative figure which is incorrect, misleading and had led to ASMT-10 dated 28.08.2023 which was replied .

Reply to ASMT 10

1.2   In the reply it was submitted that there was mistake in reporting the data in GSTR-9 Table-8C and Table-13 which resulted in negative figure at Table-8D.  The amount reported at Table-8C and Table-13 figures were different.  The correct amount of ITC for the period 2017-18 availed during 2018-19 subsequently works out to Rs.3,08,010.64 each CGST/ SGST and Rs.4,16,625. 14 IGST  as per ITC register for the subsequent year which was verified and certified by a Chartered Accountant and CA Certificate submitted . With the correct figure substituted at Table-8C, the resultant 8D figure are Rs.224473.84 CGST, SGST and Rs.106920.35 IGST which shows that less credit availed by the Appellant than reported in 2A/Table 8A of GSTR-9.  Therefore, considering the factual situation submitted also, no excess credit was availed but SCN was issued with a remark to verify Table-8D difference.  The SCN was replied, adjudicated and demand confirmed with interest and penalty. The total amount demanded including interest and penalty is Rs.7,71,238.80. Copy of ASMT 10, reply to ASMT10, copy of summary SCN in DRC01, reply to SCN are collectively marked as Exhibit-1,  copy of order and DRC-07 dated 29.12.2023 are collectively marked as Exhibit-2.  As the order was vitiated by apparent error on the face of the record, the appellant had filed rectification application under Section 161 online vide letter No. on 18.01.2024 and no rectification order has been received till date of filing of appeal. A copy of the rectification application filed is marked as Exhibit-3. Aggrieved by the order, appellants are filing this appeal on various grounds set out hereunder which are to be considered as alternate submissions without prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

No Show Cause Notice issued under section 73

  1. At the outset the Appellants submit that there cannot be any demand of Rs.3,61,999 factually or legally as there was no SCN issued under section 73 of the CGST Act 2017. As per Rule 142(1) the proper officer shall serve along with the Notice under section 73 a summary thereof electronically in Form DRC-01. In the case before your good self no show cause notice was issued under section 73 of the CGST Act 2017 only  a table  marked as DRC-01 was issued  where  there was no proposal for disallowance of ITC  of Rs. 3,61,999  due to difference in table – 8D of GSTR-9.

DRC-01 cannot substitute a  Show Cause Notice u/s 73

  1. Law is well settled that a summary SCN in DRC-01 cannot replace a Show Cause Notice to be issued under section 73 and order passed in the absence of an SCN issued under section 73 is bad in law. It was held by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises Vs The State Of Jharkhand cited in 2023 Taxo.online 129 that a summary of show-cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 in terms of Rule 142(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show-cause notice under section 73.    It was observed by High Court that “ Now the law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules provides that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 should be issued “along with” the show cause notice under Section 74(1). The word “along with” clearly indicates that in a given case show cause notice as well as summary thereof both have to be issued. As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules, the summary of show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered persona whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued electronically.” In  M/s NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. – 2022 Taxo.online 122, also  Jharkhand High Court held that summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute of show cause notice under Section 74(1). Therefore , a demand raised  without a show cause notice issued under section 73 is liable to be set aside notwithstanding the other submissions made in the following paragraphs .

Minimum requirements of show cause notice as per Apex Court decisions

  1. The Show Cause Notice to state the grounds for proposed demand , should be specific to allegations , should not be vague or lacks details . There was no allegation in DRC 01 or grounds for the proposed demand. It conveyed only an intention to verify the documents. Law is well settled that if the Notice lacks details , vague or not specific to allegations so as to put to the notice of the tax payer such notice is not a valid show cause notice . In CCE v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported in 2007 Taxo.online 2 , the Apex Court held that if the allegations in the show-cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary, vague, lack details and/or unintelligible i.e. its sufficient to hold that the Noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show-cause notice.  In this regard, kind reference is invited to  opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries P. Ltd  at para 24 to 27 wherein the opinion of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Khem Chand versus Union of India 2016 Taxo.online 59 has been relied upon as well:

“24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.

  1. Expressions like “a reasonable opportunity of making objection” or “a reasonable opportunity of defence” have come up for consideration before this Court in the context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, of course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in the present case also.
  2. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand held that the concept of “reasonable opportunity” includes various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is:

“(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based;”

Since the SCN did not have ingredients of proper SCN in view the above decisions also adjudication order based on the  DRC-01  is not proper and is liable to be set aside. 

Order travelling beyond the show cause notice  invalid

  1. Assuming but not admitting DRC-01 is a show cause notice, the said document did not contain any proposal for demand of GST Rs.3,61,999 due to Table 8D difference, whereas the order confirmed an amount of Rs.3,61,999 towards difference of ITC in GSTR-9 Table-8D. The DRC-01 contained a remark that “As per ASMT 10 Sr.No. 4 difference needs to be verified with proper supporting documents” .  As there was no proposal to  demand GST of  Rs.3,61,999  in the DRC 01 , assuming it to be a notice, the respondent has travelled much beyond the scope of the show cause notice, rendering the  same bad in law in view of the settled position of law.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the  case of CCE  Bangalore  v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd  2007 (213) 487 (SC)  have held that Show Cause Notice is the foundation of any demand and any order passed beyond the show cause notice is not legally permissible.  Similar views were taken by the Supreme Court in CCE & Cus ,  Surat  v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds  Ltd  2015 (326 ) ELT 3 (SC) , Caprihans  India Ltd  v  CCE 2015(325) ELT 632 SC,  CC  Mumbai  v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd 2006 (201) ELT 513  SC.  Further reliance is placed on the following decisions. 

In view of  the settled legal position,  the demand of tax, interest and penalty in the order-in-original is liable to be set aside. 

Submission in the reply to DRC01, made at the time of PH/ reply to ASMT 10  not considered – submission not considered violation of natural justice

  1. Without prejudice to the submissions above Appellants would like to bring to Notice the reply to ASMT 10 where it was submitted that there was mistake in reporting amount in Table 8C and table 13 of the GSTR9. Table 8C and Table 13 represents the amount of ITC availed for the year 2017-18 in 2018-19 and the amount in both the tables must be same. But the amount reported at Table-8C and Table-13 figures were different.  The correct amount of ITC for the period 2017-18 availed subsequently works out to Rs.308010.64 each CGST/ SGST and Rs.4,16,625. 14  as per ITC register for the subsequent year which is verified and certified by a Chartered Accountant also. With the correct figure put at Table-8C the resultant 8D figure are Rs.224473.84 CGST, SGST and Rs.106920.35 IGST i.e. less credit availed than reported in 2A/Table 8A of GSTR-9.  The CA certificate and ITC register and the revised 8D was not considered and submissions rejected without any reason other than an observation in the order Not acceptable. To that extent the order is a non-speaking order and also in gross violation natural justice and on that count itself is liable to be set aside in view of the decisions below:
  • M/s PBL Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd v Asst ./Additional Commissioner cited in 2024 Taxo.online 127
  • Rainbow Motors v Assistant Commission (ST) cited in 2023 Taxo.online 911 (MAD)
  • Diamond Beverages Pvt Ltd &Anr v Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise cited in 2023 Taxo.online 1419
  • Anavilasam Service Co-operative Bank v Asst:Commissioner of Income Tax 2021-TIOL -2076 –Kerala IT
  • Kesari Marine Services v UOI cited in 2019 Taxo.online 948

5.1   Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PBL Transport Corporation (P) (Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(supra) 2024 Taxo.online 127 allowed the writ petition and held that the Audit Report is not valid when reply to Discrepancy Notice is not taken into consideration, leading to violation of principles of natural justice.  The same principle applies to non consideration reply to ASMT 10  and issuing DRC01.Therefore, considering the factual situation submitted also, no excess credit being availed the demand confirmed in the order is an error apparent on the face of the record which was requested rectification but not considered. Considering the factual position of mistake in 8D may accept the corrected one in view of affidavit executed and Chartered Accountants Certificate submitted herewith.

Legal position on disallowance of ITC due to 2A and 8D difference.

  1. Without prejudice to the submissions above Appellants would like to bring to Notice the legal position regarding demand due to 2A and 8D difference. The respondent has disallowed ITC amounting to Rs.3,61,999 on the ground of GSTR-9 Table-8D difference without an amount of proposed demand of Rs.3,61,999 in the show cause notice.  The respondent has not justified the legal position while disallowing the ITC. Factually, also respondent has not explained how the amount of Rs.3,61,999  was calculated to disallow the ITC on the ground of a difference in 8D which was not in DRC01. Assuming it to be the difference between 2A appearing in Table-8A of GSTR-9 and the total credit availed as per 8B and 8C of GSTR-9 still the amount is not matching with the difference as per Table-8 D of GSTR-9  2017-18  which is reproduced below. 
8 description  Central tax State Tax IGST
8D  Difference

[A-(B +C) ]

 (-) 913923.04 (-) 913923.04 (-) 381312.19

The actual position of 8D after correction of the amount that had to be reported in GSTR-8 C is as follows

8 description  Central tax State Tax IGST
8D  Difference

[A-(B +C) ]

 2,24,472.29 2,24,472.29 1,06,920.78

6.1   Revised Table-8 is attached herewith as Exhibit —--putting correct values in Table-8C. From the revised table 8D it can be seen that there is no excess availment of credit than reported in Table 8A of GSTR9 / GSTR 2A.  Copy of Chartered Accountant’s certificate  having verified the ITC transactions , the reporting in GSTR-9 and an affidavit executed by the General Manager (Taxation) are   attached herewith. The factual position of the credit availed as reflected from the 

6.2    Barring the mis-match of amount considered for disallowance in the order and the actual amount in 8D, it is submitted that the respondent is not justified in disallowing the ITC due to reason  that :

  • There was no proposal for disallowance of ITC in ASMT 10 at serial No. 4 or in the show cause notice for disallowance of ITC of Rs.361999 on account of the difference in Table -8 D of GSTR-9.
  • There was no legal provision for disallowance of ITC for any difference reflected in Table 8D of GSTR-9 due to excess credit availed than reported in 2A.
  • There was no enabling provision in the law to disallow the ITC if return was not uploaded by the supplier till the amendment in Section 16(2) by insertion of clause (aa) with effect from 01.01.2022.

6.3   In short , filing of return by the supplier was made a condition for eligibility of the ITC only after the amendment in Section 16(2) effective 01.01.2022. Even prior to that Rule 36(4) contained an identical provision effective from 9th October 2019.  The matching of GSTR 2A with the ITC availed in the GSTR 3B returns was made applicable vide CBIC notification No.49/2019 dated 06.10.2019 .  In any case, it may be noted that there was no legal provision either by Rule or by Act or any direction by way of a Board circular for disallowance of ITC for want of filing of return by the supplier. On the contrary CBIC  had clarified by a press release  dated 18.10.2018 clarified that“the furnishing of outward details in FORM GSTR-1 by the corresponding supplier(s) and the facility to view the same in FORM GSTR-2A by the recipient is in the nature of taxpayer facilitation and does not impact the ability of the taxpayer to avail ITC on self-assessment basis in consonance with the provisions of section 16 of the Act”  . At the time of availing the credit, there was no such requirement in the law and the CBEC press release also clarified 2A as a taxpayer facilitation measure. Over and above that,  2A report was not available to the taxpayer during the relevant time of availing the credit in 2017 to ensure that the vendor had uploaded the data in his GST return. Form 2A was made operational only with effect from September 2018 in the GSTN portal. The Appellants had availed ITC for the year 2017-18 as per the entry in the books of accounts with support of invoices. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v Bharati Airtel  cited in 2021 Taxo.online 1167 that credit could be availed based on entry in the books of accounts, if 2A was not available. Passing an order not considering the submissions made by the Appellant is in gross violation of natural justice, order being a non-speaking order is liable to be set aside . Law is well settled that ITC cannot be denied for want of invoices not appearing in 2A.  In Divya Agencies  v. STO 2023 (10) Centax 266 (Ker)  it was held that if the selling dealer had not remitted GST amount paid by assessee to him, assessee could not be held responsible; if assessee had paid tax amount and transactions between assessee and selling dealer were genuine, ITC claim could not be denied merely on ground that in Form GSTR-2A said tax was not reflected.   In Henna Medicals  v STO cited in 2023 Taxo.online 1004  (Ker) also it was held that the input tax credit of the assessee under the GST regime cannot be denied merely on the difference of GSTR 2A and 3B.  The decision in the case of Engineering Tools Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner (Supra) cited in 2024 Taxo.online 303  and Divya Agencies  v. STO (Supra)  squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the respondent is not justified in disallowing the credit for want of invoices in 2A whether it is due to cancellation of registration or otherwise.  It is not disputed in the order that the appellant had not paid the amount to the supplier.  In view of the statutory prescription in Section 16(2)(aa) ,the CBIC press release and the decision of High Court / Supreme Court Supreme Court, disallowance of ITC for want of upload of return by the supplier and the consequent negative balance in Table-8D cannot be a ground of disallowance of ITC. 

Interest demanded  not proposed in the show cause notice

  1. Interest has been demanded in the order for which there was no proposal in the show cause notice . As explained above there was no show cause notice asking to show cause why the amount of tax demand, interest and penalty  in the notice was not liable to be paid . ASMT10 point no 3 states “Needs to verify interest on cash payment” and it  is not a proposed demand. Similarly ASMT 10 point No. 4 states “in GSTR-9 Pt  III,  8 Sr No.(D) Difference needs to be verified .  As against the above observations interest has been demand in the order of Rs 566IGST, Rs.3438 CGST and Rs.9555-SGST and , interest Rs.3,73,039.97 demanded on ASMT10 point no 4.   In both the cases there was no proposed demand for the amount of tax or interest in the show cause notice.  Therefore, the order is beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and on that ground itself the demand of interest is liable to be set aside, notwithstanding the other submissions on merit that there was no GST liability for tax on table 8D difference.   Further, how the interest has been calculated on the amount of tax demand also not stated in the order.  Therefore, the interest demand is not sustainable; demand is liable to be set aside.   

Penalty demanded

  1. As no demand is sustainable as submitted above , penalty also not attracted in addition to the fact that there was no proposal in the notice to charge GST on Table 8D difference.

PRAYER

  1. For setting aside the impugned order No DRC-07- dated ……  to the extent prejudicial to the appellant and appealed against
  2. For attending personal hearing.
  3. Prayer for leave , in respect of the submissions aforementioned, for adding thereto or deleting therefrom, any matter or for making any clarifications or for adducing further evidences , in respect thereof and for presenting further documents, in connection therewith,  if  so require.
  4. For any other consequential reliefs arising in terms of (a) above.
  5. For such other order / orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

Verification

I, ………………………………………….  hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

Place                                                                                    Name of the Applicant

Date   07.03.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Register Today

Menu