2021 (9) TMI 420 - HC - GST

Demand of GST - Difference in turnover as per GSTR 3B return - Violation of principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity of personal hearing not provided to the petitioner - works contractor executing civil contract works - allegation is that the payments received by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent were not tallying with the turnover reported through GST returns - period April, 2018 to March, 2019 - HELD THAT - The main observation of the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 is that the data projected in CFMS relating to payments received by the petitioner from various Departments for execution of the work contracts was not tallying with the turnover reported through GSTR 3B returns. Basing on such observation, he issued a notice in Form DRC-01A and called for the explanation of the petitioner which was submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.2020. In the explanation, his submission was that the variation between the payments received and the turnover mentioned in the returns was because of the fact that the payments made to him were only part payments and not complete bills. With reference to the aforesaid explanation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent observed that the petitioner has not submitted the bills raised on the Department in support of his claim of amounts received in respect of VAT and GST Acts. Hence, the differential amounts arrived were to be treated as amounts received against the works executed in the GST period. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact, the petitioner applied for necessary information relating to the bills raised by him and TDS deducted thereon by the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent has not furnished the said information in time and in the meanwhile, the impugned summary order was passed by the 2nd respondent - an opportunity should be accorded to the petitioner to present his case before the 2nd respondent. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent with a direction that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity to him to present the relevant information - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017 without considering explanation and without personal hearing, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged an order issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, claiming an amount towards estimated tax payable based on discrepancies in reported turnover and payments received. The petitioner provided an explanation for the differences but the 2nd respondent issued a summary order without considering the explanation or providing a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner argued that irregular payments by the 3rd respondent led to differences in reported turnover and payments received, which were explained in detail in the submission dated 20.02.2020. Despite this, the 2nd respondent did not consider the explanation properly and passed the order fixing the tax amount. The petitioner requested to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The 2nd respondent's main observation was that the data in CFMS did not match the turnover reported through GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner explained that the differences were due to partial payments received, not complete bills. The 2nd respondent noted that the petitioner did not submit bills raised on the Department to support the claim of amounts received. The crux of the issue was the lack of bill details to show that certain amounts were related to a previous assessment period for which TDS was deducted.

Analysis:
The Court found that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the 2nd respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner for presenting relevant information and to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and rules. No costs were awarded, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.