Draft Appeal Section 73 on PMT-09 and absence of GST functionality
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI
In the matter of:
M/s. . Appellant
(GSTIN -)
Vs
GST Officer, Ward , Zone , Respondent
Delhi Goods & Service Tax
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. About the Appellant:
That the appellant, M/s. ……………….. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant’), is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of telecommunication, information technology-related software systems, and solar-powered outdoor hotspot solutions. The Appellant has been carrying out the said business activities for several years from its registered office located at ………………………………. and is duly registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bearing GSTIN: ……………………
2. Issuance of Show Cause Notice (Form GST DRC-01):
That the Appellant was served with a notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.05.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017, by the Ld. Proper Officer of Ward-………., Delhi, proposing a demand of IGST: ₹88,19,710/-, Interest: ₹73,98,408/-, and Penalty: ₹8,81,971/-, aggregating to a total demand of ₹1,71,00,089/-. The basis of this demand was an alleged short reporting of turnover in GSTR-1/3B/9 compared with GSTR-7 returns filed by various TDS deductors.
3. Passing of the Assessment Order:
That pursuant to the above notice, the Ld. Proper Officer passed an Order dated 18.08.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, confirming the proposed demand. It is submitted that the said order is arbitrary, mechanical, and devoid of proper application of mind.
4. Issuance of Summary Orders (DRC-07):
That the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was also issued reflecting the identical demand. The order is cryptic, non-speaking, and contrary to principles of natural justice.
5. Branch-Wise Turnover and TDS Allocation:
That during FY 2019-20, the Appellant was registered under GST in four states and had an aggregate turnover of ₹12,71,22,141/- as per audited financials. Delhi: ₹3,23,05,000; Haryana: Nil; Uttar Pradesh: ₹2,06,88,641; Punjab: ₹7,41,28,500.
6. Mismatch due to Systemic Issues in TDS Allocation:
That the Appellant received TDS credit of ₹14,59,306/-: IGST ₹14,55,176/- (Punjab) and CGST/SGST ₹2,065/- each (Delhi). Due to a clerical error by CSC E-Governance Services India Ltd., all TDS was reflected under Delhi GSTIN, resulting in mismatch.
7. Absence of Functionality to Transfer Cash Between GSTINs:
That Form PMT-09 enabling transfer of balances was notified via Notification No. 31/2019-CT dated 28.06.2019 but became effective only from 21.04.2020 via Notification No. 37/2020-CT dated 28.04.2020. Thus, the Appellant had no mechanism to rectify the error during FY 2019-20. (Copy of both the Notifications is attached)
8. Error in Deductor’s Return (CSC E-Governance):
That although invoices were raised by multiple branches, the deductor erroneously reported all TDS under Delhi GSTIN, which could not be rectified due to system limitations.
9. Legal Judgements, Notifications, Circulars
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. That the order passed by the Learned GST Officer is void ab initio, having been based entirely on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures without substantiating the conclusions with proper evidence or reasoning.
2. That the notice issued under Form GST DRC-01 is barred by limitation and has been served beyond the statutory period prescribed under the CGST Act. The Learned Officer has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 168A to extend the limitation period, which is not applicable in the present case. Consequently, the said notice is liable to be set aside.
3. That the impugned order has been passed in contravention of Notification No. 31/2019-CT dated 28.06.2019, read with Notification No. 37/2020-CT dated 28.04.2020. The order lacks proper reasoning and demonstrates a non-application of mind, having been passed in an arbitrary and hasty manner.
4. That the TDS amount in question was duly claimed by the Appellant in February 2020. However, the facility for transferring balances in the Electronic Cash Ledger from one GSTIN to another (via Form PMT-09) was introduced only with effect from 21.04.2020. At the relevant time, neither such a functionality was available on the GST portal nor was there any enabling statutory provision. The order therefore imposes liability on the Appellant for circumstances beyond their control and is liable to be quashed.
5. That the Appellant respectfully reserves the right to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any ground of appeal at any stage of the proceedings, as may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice.
Prayer :-
In light of the foregoing grounds and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Authority may graciously be pleased to:
1. Set aside the impugned demand order dated 18.08.2024, in view of the legal and procedural infirmities and the absence of statutory functionality to transfer Electronic Cash Ledger balances between GSTINs at the relevant time; and
2. Direct the refund of the pre-deposit amount (10% of the disputed tax) along with applicable interest within a reasonable period; or
3. Pass any other order deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.
Appellant
Dated :
Place :
Author Bio
