FORM GST APL-1

[Refer Rule 108(1)}

Appeal to Appellate Autho rity

1. GSTIN/ Temporary ID/UIN -

07ACVPG3141J1ZC
2. Legal name of the Appel lant-
Mr. Amit Goyal
3. Trade name, if any -
Kunal International
4. Addre ss-
Basement, Second And Third Floor, Khasra No.
52/23/ 1, Village Prahladpur, Banger, New
Delhi, North Delhi, Delhi, 110042
Order Type- DRC 07
Order Date- 29-08-2024
5. Order No- ZD0708241048739
6. Designation and address of the officer passing
Assistant Commissioner
the order Appealed against
Badli- Delhi
7. Date of communication of the order appealed
29-08-2024
against
8. Name of the authorized representative
Mr Amit Goyal

Order issued under sectio n 73 for paym ent of tax

with intere st and penal ty

Category of the Case under Dispute-

9. Details of the case under dispute -
(i) Brief issue of the case under dispute -
Refer to Annexure
(ii) Description and classification of goods
Refer to Annexure
(iii) /services in disput e -
(iv) Period of dispute- 2019-20
Amou nt under Dispute

Description Central tax State/ UT tax Integr ated tax Cess Total Amou nt (Rs.)
(Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs)
Amoun1 Tax/ Cess 11,43, 598/- 11,43,598/- NIL NIL 22,87 ,196/-
of 45,82,187/-
Intere st 10,23, 738/- 10,23,738/- NIL
Dispute Penalt NIL 20,47 ,476/-
y 1,23,757/- 1,23,757/- NIL NIL 2,47,5 15/-
Fees NIL NIL NIL NIL
Other charges NIL NIL NIL NIL

(v) Marke t value of seized goods

NA
10. Wheth er the appel lant wishe s to be heard in
Yes
person
11. Statem ent of facts
Refer to Annex ure
12. Groun ds of Appea l:
Refer to Annex ure
13. Prayer
Refer to Annex ure

For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL

a-r--~ Prop rieto r
Arnit Goya 1
Description Central State/UT Integrated Cess Total Amount (Rs)
Tax (Rs) Tax (Rs) Tax (Rs) (Rs)

Particulars of Tax/ Cess NIL NIL NIL NIL Nil

Refund claimed Interest Nil Nil NIL Nil NIL
NIL
Penalty Nil NIL NIL NIL Nil
Fees NIL Nil NIL Nil Nil
Other Nil NIL NIL NIL Nil
charges
Tax/ Cess NIL Nil NIL NIL NIL NIL
Particulars of
Refund Interest NIL Nil NIL NIL NIL
Granted Penalty NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Fees NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Other NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
charges
14. Amount of Refund claimed NA

15. Details of payment of admitted amount and pre- 2,28,719/- {CGST-1,14,359/- & SGST-1,14,359/-)
deposit -
16. Whether appeal is being filed after the prescribed NA
per Period
17. If 'Yes' in item 16
• Reason of delay
• Period of delay

VERIFICATION

I, Amit Goyal, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given hereinabove is true and
correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL
~f'
Place: DELHI Signature: Proprieto r
Date:15-11-2024 Name of the Applicant: Mtlo~py al

Contact No. 9599888172/7982204803

Email Id: [email protected]/[email protected]
 r
•

ANNEXURE TO FORM GST APL-01

Appeal to Appellate Authority

9. DETAILS OF THE CASE UNDER DISPUTE-

(i) Brief issue of the case under dispute-

The Applicant Mr. Amit Goyal proprietor of Kunal International, having GSTIN-
07 ACYPG3 l 4 l JI ZC were in receipt of notice, wherein Proper Officer has made various contention
through form DRC- 01 having reference no. ZD070824000822L dated 01-0~2024 under section
73 demanding for total amounting of Tax Rs. 24,75,440 /- (CGST-12,37,720/-; SGST- 12,37,720/-
) with an interest of equal amount of tax for FY 2019-20, on the points which are as follows:

• Tax along with interest is required to discharge on short payment of Tax amounting to Rs.
1,88,244/-.
• Reversal of excess ITC used in GSTR 3B amounting to Rs. 22,75,147/-
• Short payment of tax under RCM of Rs.12,048/-.

In response of above discrepancy appellant had filed his submission within prescribed time.

It is important to note that proper officer issued an order after being dissatisfied with the reply
of DRC 01 in FORM DRC 07 having reference no. ZD0708241048739 on 29-08-24 under section
73 demanding for payment of Tax along with interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 45,82, 187/-{Tax-
22,87, l 96/-; Interest-20,47,476/-; Penalty- 2,47,515/-).

Appellant being dissatisfied with the issued order for payment of such huge levy of tax prefers the
present appeals against such order.

(ii) Description and classification of goods/ services in dispute: NA

11. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant proprietorship Kuna) International (herein referred to as "the Appellant")

submits as under:

1. THAT, The Appellant, having GSTIN 07ACYPG3141J1ZC, owned proprietorship business

managed under the name Kunal International engaged in the core business activities of
wholesaler/ distributor.

2. THAT, it's operating from registered place situated at Basement, Second And Third Floor,
Khasra No. 52/23/ I, Village Prahladpur, Banger, New Delhi, North Delhi, Delhi, 110042

3. THAT a notice issued vide form ASMT IO for intimating discrepancies in the return after
scrutiny with ref. no ZY070523009274D dated 16-05-2024 against which appellant made his
submission via submitting their explanation in hard copy at department.

For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL

t+-tp:L Arnit Goyal

L
 4. THAT, SCN was issued to the Appellant via DRC- 01 having reference no. ZD070923042984Z
on 25-09-23 under section 73 demanding against excess input tax credit (lTC) claimed in 38
for the period 2019-20.

5. That in our response to the same, we had submitted our submission along with copy of relevant
reversal via DRC 03 and other paid liability within the prescribed time frame.

6. That without given proper consideration of our submission and liability discharged at the time
of reply, Adjudicating Officer has issued an order in FORM DRC 07 having reference no
ZD070824 l048739 on 29-08-24 for payment of tax liability along with interest and penalty
amounting to Rs. 45,82, 187/-

Therefore, the Appellant being aggrieved by an order prefers an appeal against as order causes huge
liability.

12. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

The Appellant prefers to appeal against the aforementioned impugned order for paying a tax levy with
amount to Rs. 45,82, 187/- which includes interest and penalty, without considering our plea in regard of
issued DRC Ol, given explanation on excess claim of ITC. Below are the main headings that constitute
the appellant's argument.

A. In Re: Demand of interest (late filing of invoice) on short payment of tax liability Rs. 1,88,243/-
8. In Re: Excess ITC claimed in GSTR 38 as compared to GSTR 9 in FY 2019-20.
C. In Re: short payment of tax amounting to Rs. 12,048/- under RCM
D. In re: Interest and penalty as applicable u/s 50 & 122 CGST Act 2017

A. In Re: Demand of interest (late filing of invoice) on short payment qf tax liability Rs. 1,88,243/-
That proper officer raised a demand for discharge of interest liability an account of late filing of
invoice, in accordance of our submission, that we had paid the short paid tax amount during the F.Y.
2020-21 by elaborating the fact that we had missed an invoice to file in GTSR I later the same has
been shown in GSTR 9 2019-20, and the same was shown in the month of august 20 and tax liability
has been discharged in response of short payment of tax in comparison of GSTR I with GSTR 9,
Officer stated that we had paid the tax liability but did not discharge the interest liability for late
payment of tax and it is observed that the ITC available in electronic credit ledger has dropped below
from Rs. 1,88,243/- during the F. Y. 2019-20 & 2020-21,hence the applicable interest is liable to be
recovered.
In regard of above appellant hereby requested to waive off interest liability in consequent that it was
not our intention to violate any tax regulations, and we fully acknowledge our responsibility also
rectified the matter promptly. Whereas as per the GST Act, interest is typically imposed to compensate
for delays in tax payment. However, in our case, the tax liability was settled in full and maintained a
sufficient balance in our Electronic credit ledger in total throughout the year, also I would like to clarify
that the delay in payment was not due to any intent to evade tax or negligence but was rather a result
of human error.

For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL

p--r -r
Proprietor
Amit Goyal
 request that the
duly paid and the liability settled, I kindly
Given that the principal tax amount has been be cons istent with the
waive off. I believe this would
imposition of interest be reconsidered and
in the GST framework.
principles of fairness and equity as outlined

R 3B as compared to GSTR 9 in FY 2019-20:

B. In Re: Excess ITC claimed in GST

unt to Rs.
appellant had avaiJed ITC in excess amo
That as per notice officer contented that and ITC
ted in GSTR 2A amount to Rs. 9,87,55,616/-
45,89,011.18/- in comparison ofITC accumula e) with ITC
9,84,57,375 (officer opted the GSTR 9 figur
of GSTR 2A asper GSTR 9 amount to Rs. had provide the following ITC
86/-, for which appellant
availed in GSTR 38 amount to Rs. I 0,30,46,3
GSTR 9,
comparison as per the figures mentioned in
GSTR- 2A
Comparison of ITC claim in GSTR- 3B with Total
IGST CGST SGST
Particulars 10,30,46,400
3,49,49,150 3,40,48,625 3,40,48,625
ITC CLAIM IN 38
LESS: Reversal On 19-20 Not
Included In Auto-Populated -1,62, 155.00
Figure Of GSTR 9 -1,62, 155.00
3,40,48,625 10,28,84,245
NETITC 3,47,86,995 3,40,48,625
Add: ITC of 19-20 taken in 78,680.93 78,680.93 13,92,447
12,35,085.28
20-21
Less- 18-19 ITC taken in 19- -26,38,822.12 -6,56,546.02 -6,56,546.02 -39,51,914
20 10,03,24,777.98
3,33,83,258.16 3,34,70,759.91 3,34,70,759.91
NET ITC FOR THE YEAR
Less: Reversal of ITC via -7,37,428.00 -23,13,864
DRC03 -8,39,008.00 -7,37,428.00
Less: Reversal of ITC via -62,938.00 -1,25,876
DRC03 -62,938.00
FINAL ITC (TAKEN IN 1 9,78,85,037.98
RETURN) 3,25,44,250.16 3,26,70,393.91 3,26,70,393.9
3,31,16,586.12 3,26,70,394.35 3,26,70,394.3 5 9,84,57,375
GSTR- 2A (Downloaded)
5,72,335.96 0.44 0.44 5, 72,336.84
DIFFERENCE

h were claimed
rent that there is no excess claimed and whic
Further from the provide summary it is appa ed excess ITC
officer concludes that appellant had claim
in excess it reversed via DRC 03 however the figures ofDRC
- 23,13,864 -1,25,87) only considering
amount to Rs. 22, 75, 147.18/- (45,89,011.18
03. .
ying the short claim ed ITC amount to Rs. 26,38,822.12/-
Further in order officer stated that for verif sum mary Sheet downloaded
with tax liability vs ITC
pertains to the F. Y. 2018-19 not reconciled
from the portal.
the purpose of
llant like to emphasise the fact that For
ln ~espe~t of the offi~er observation, appe be taken into
, Portal ITC reconciliation reports should not
venficat1on ofITC availment (short/excess) R 2A,
between eligible and non-eligible ITC in GST
account solely. _Given that it failed to distinguish ed in GST R
R 2A column, in addition figures ofITC avail
and_non-reflectlon ofRCM ITC data in GST
included ITC that pertains to the prior year.
3B includes all figures of ITC availed, which

For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL

A f -f
Pro prie tor
Ami t Goy al
 (tax
officer's reliance on portal data
pos e of this argum ent is, for verification of ITC availment vision related to the
Pur ance of the pro
vs ITC sum ma ry She et) is not final and accurate in accord quantu m of tax
liability argue that
in GS T Act , furt her app ellant is within his legal rights to
ITC availment
demand is not correct.
officer contention
ds still with their prior submit ted reconciliation and deny the
Therefore appellant stan deny the officer contention for
and of exc ess ava iled ITC amount to Rs. 22, 75, I47.18. and
for dem
.
payment of imposed tax liability

- under RCM
tax amounting to Rs. 12,048/
C. In Re: short payment of
rest and penalty on
offi cer imp ose d the tax liability along with applicable inte
That vide order DR C 07, ntioned in notice
plic ant had not disc har ge the agreed tax Jiability amount as me
the ground of that Ap
er.
(SCN) till the issuance of the ord
4, he discharged the stipulated
ellant wou ld like to state that on June 28, 202
Regardi ng this, the app y of same was provided at
deb it entr y num ber DC0706240210135. A cop
liability thro ugh ECL with pay the tax liability twice
ring . Thu s the app ellant is exempt from having to
the time of pers onn el hea the officer's contention on
g with imp ose d liab ility and penalty. Consequently, we deny
amount alon
le.
the grounds that it is unsustainab
50 & 122 CGST Act 2017
t and penalty as applicable u/s
E. In re: Recovery of interes
alty of Rs. 2,27,515/-
C 07 offi cer has imp ose d an interest liability along with pen
Vide such order DR
tax liabilities.
& 20,000/- on above mentioned
e of amended provisions
we wou ld like to sub mit our submission in accordanc
For the above intimat ion interest and penalties for
sect ion 128 A of CGST Act, 2017 for waiver of
of section 128 by inse rted 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-
ices issu ed und er Sec tion 73 of the CGST Act for the FY
demand not demanded in the notice
er pays the full amount of tax
20, in cases where the taxpay
128A
As per the proviso of section
e
re any amount of tax is payabl
with standing any thin g to the contrary contained in this Act, whe
1) Not
in accordance with
by a person chargeable with tax
-section
a statement issued under sub
a not ice issued und er sub-section (l) of section 73 or has been issued;
(a) section 73
order under sub-section (9) of
(3) of section 73, and where no
the said person
from Ist July , 20 I7 to 3 Ist Ma rch, 2020, or a part thereof, and
pertaining to the period rred to in clause
abl e as per the not ice or statement or the order refe
pays the full amount of tax pay be notified by the
( c), as the case may be, on or before the date, as may
(a), clause (b) or clau se penalty under this
end atio ns of the Cou ncil , no interest under section 50 and
Government on the reco mm ement, as the
all the pro cee ding s in resp ect of the said notice or order or stat
Act, shall be payable and ditions as may be prescribed:
be concluded, subject to such con
case may be, shall be deemed to
to submit that interest
nce of the abo ve men tion ed provision of 128A RTP had like
Therefore i? a~~orda tax liability.
ved off on already discharged the
& penalty hab1hty should be wai

L
For KUNAL INTERNATIONA
/:lt .-.. --r ::,-
r--7 J
Pro pri eto r
Am it Go yal
 is not correct. Also
s to argue that quantum of tax demand
Further appellant is within his legal right reply, it indicates
in good faith at the time of filing DRC I O
the appellant has already reversed the ITC
in present case there is no mens rea.
neously refunded
nation of tax not paid or short paid or erro
As per section 73 of the GST Act, "Determi or any wilful-
utilised for any reason other than fraud
or input tax credit wrongly availed or
misstatement or suppression of facts."
evade tax must
l misstatement or suppression of facts to
That for imposing penalty fraud or any wilfu maxim of "actus
it is a general principle ofJaw, based on the
be proved, it is vehemently submitted that be shown that
not make a man guilty, unless it can also
non facit reum mens sit rea" that an act does
he was aware that he was doing wrong.
l Ltd. (supra)
of this Court in the cases of Hindustan stee
Appellant has also relied upon the decision , Indo re and others
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. re levy of penalty
of Central Excise, Chandigarh that befo
(6) ELT 295(S.C.) and Commissioner
the department.
and interest mens rea has to be proved by
not reflective the
penalty imposed is unreasonable and
Therefore, we firmly believe that the submission and
tion, being not satisfied from the appellant
circumstances surrounding the alleged viola
sed.
on their own belief penalty should not be impo
ted proceeding
d provision it is requested to drop the initia
Hence in accordance of the above mentione lity.
gly imposed and already discharged tax liabi
for imposition of interest and penalty on wron

13. Prayer:
w of the situation
It is requested that this appeal would be
granted. Appellant want to request a revie
resulted in the
nderstanding or error in the assessment that
because we think there may have been a misu authorities may
court fights between the taxpayer and tax
impugnment order being issued, prolonged
arise from serious inaccuracies in tax liability.
liability may
quash the demand notice. The incorrect tax
Therefore, kindly give it some thought and business and may have
e immense financial hardship to
result in an overpayment, which could caus be costly and time-
eover, pursuing appeals and disputes can
serious repercussions on its existence. Mor
consuming and drain resources.

For KUNAL INTERNATIONAL

~--t7
Pro prie tor
Amit Goy al