M/S Bathla Telectech Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2025

0
4

An inspection was carried out by the Respondent at
PPOB and additional place of business (“APOB”)
of the Petitioner under Section 67 of the CGST and
SGST Act, prima facie on the reason that the entire
output tax liability for the relevant period were
paid by the Petitioner by way of ITC and not cash
ledger. (Annexure – 6)
18.10.2022 Summon under Section 70 of the CGST Act was
issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the director of
the Petitioner to give evidence and produce the
relevant documents for the period December 2017
to 25.08.2022. (Annexure – 7)
04.11.2022 The Petitioner replied to the above summon and
submitted the requested documents before the
25.11.2022 Respondent No. 2 (Annexure – 8) (Annexure – 9)
Patna High Court CWJC No.470 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025

29.11.2022 Intimation and statement of liability of the tax was
served upon the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2 in
GST-DRC-01. (Annexure-10)
12.12.2022 The Petitioner replied the aforesaid intimations in
Part B of GST DRC-01A as per Rule 142(2A) of
the CGST Rules disputing the entire amount of tax
demanded by the Respondent No. 2. (Annexure –



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here