2022 (5) TMI 127 - HC - GST

Demand of GST alongwith interest and penalty - purported difference between the contents of two returns i.e., GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 4/revenue, says that the concerned officer will examine the contentions raised by the petitioner, along with the necessary documents filed in support of the contentions. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition will be examined by the concerned officer by treating it as representation - the concerned officer will grant opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of orders related to tax demand, penalty, and notices under DGST Act.
2. Discrepancy in tax returns filed for March and April 2019.
3. Petitioner's contention of depositing tax and interest as per revenue circular.
4. Respondents to examine contentions and documents, grant hearing, and issue directions.
5. Directions issued by the court for the disposal of the representation and subsequent actions.
6. Concerns raised regarding the readability of orders for visually impaired individuals.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.07.2021, which raised a tax demand of Rs. 18.06 crores, along with interest and penalty, due to a discrepancy between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns for March 2019. The petitioner argued that the error was rectified in the subsequent return for April 2019, and the tax with interest was deposited in accordance with the revenue's circular. The court noted the petitioner's compliance with the circular and directed the concerned officer to examine the contentions and documents provided by the petitioner.

The respondents agreed to review the petitioner's submissions and assured that if satisfied, necessary directions would be issued. The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the concerned officer to treat the petitioner's contentions as a representation, grant a hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative, and refrain from taking any precipitate action pending the representation's disposal. The decision on the representation was to be communicated to the petitioner, with a two-week grace period in case of an adverse decision. The court emphasized expeditious disposal within six weeks and closed the pending application accordingly.

Furthermore, the court raised concerns about the readability of orders, noting that endorsements across pages could hinder readability, especially for visually impaired individuals. It suggested affixing endorsements where there is no writing to ensure accessibility and requested the concerned party to address this issue with the CEO of Goods and Service Tax Network.