2020 (10) TMI 465 - HC - GST

Discrepancy in the return submitted - amount of ₹ 20,31,000/- was not reflected in the return filed by respondent no. 3 - Petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancies found in the return. But instead of appearing before the authority, he has approached this Court - HELD THAT - The issue at hand is required to be addressed at the level of the respondent no. 2 in the first place. The impugned notice dated 4th May, 2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle reflects some discrepancies in the return filed by the petitioner. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both are ready and bound to cooperate in the inquiry. Respondent no. 2 shall endeavour to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both should cooperate in the matter. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Prematurity of the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under GST Act.
2. Discrepancy in the return filed by the petitioner and the involvement of respondent no. 3, a distributor/dealer.
3. Request for direction to decide upon the issue and convene a meeting with respondent no. 3.
4. Submission of counter affidavits by the State and respondent no. 3.
5. Requirement for both petitioner and respondent no. 3 to cooperate in the inquiry.
6. Fixing a timeline for the conclusion of the inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under the GST Act was deemed premature by the State, as the adjudication on the notice was pending. The State argued that the petitioner should have explained the discrepancies found in the return before approaching the court, emphasizing the need for both parties to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the competent authority for resolution.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about a discrepancy in the return filed by him, which indicated an amount not reflected by respondent no. 3, a distributor/dealer. The petitioner sought a direction for the issue to be decided based on the reply to show cause filed by him, highlighting that the GST amounts collected were not reflected due to an error. Additionally, the petitioner requested a meeting with respondent no. 3 to address the matter.

3. Both the State and respondent no. 3 submitted counter affidavits. Respondent no. 3 explained that the issue arose from the petitioner's new GST registration number not being provided initially, leading to complications in the return filings. Respondent no. 3 expressed readiness to participate in the inquiry and cooperate with the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax.

4. The court acknowledged the submissions of all parties and emphasized the need for cooperation in resolving the issue. It directed the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time, suggesting a timeline of 16 weeks for completion. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were instructed to cooperate fully during the inquiry process to facilitate a resolution.

5. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition, highlighting the importance of addressing the discrepancies in the return filing through cooperation between the petitioner and respondent no. 3. The judgment underscored the necessity for both parties to actively engage in the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under the GST Act to reach a satisfactory resolution.

← Previous Next →