9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1165 - HC - GSTTransitional credit - Disparity was on account of the transitional credit availed of and reflected in the GSTR 9 annual return - mismatch between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reported in GSTR 9 versus the GSTR 3B returns - HELD HAT - The petitioner clearly stated in reply dated 21.09.2023 that transitional ITC of Rs. 1,15,40,474/- was claimed and that this is reflected in the GSTR 9 return but not in the GSTR 3B return. As regards the alleged defect pertaining to Director's remuneration, in the reply dated 27.10.2023, the petitioner stated that the Directors of the Company are based at the head office in Mumbai and that their remuneration would be taxable on RCM basis in the State of Maharashtra and not in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, as regards the blocked credit, it was expressly stated in the reply dated 27.10.2023 that no ITC was claimed in respect of the four items specified under defect no.2. In the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the tax demand without taking into consideration the above replies of the petitioner. This is also the case with regard to the other defects discussed in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 31.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration by the respondent - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to an order dated 31.12.2023 in a writ petition regarding GST audit findings and tax liability.
Summary: The petitioner, a registered person under GST enactments operating Pan-India, received a show cause notice post an audit report. The impugned order of 31.12.2023 was challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel highlighted discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) and explained transitional credit availed of. The issue of non-payment of tax on Director's remuneration under reverse charge mechanism was also addressed, stating that liability falls in Maharashtra, not Tamil Nadu. Additionally, blocked credit under Section 17(5) of GST enactments was discussed, clarifying that no ITC was claimed on specified items. The Government Advocate pointed out that tax liability was confirmed due to the petitioner's failure to produce documents regarding taxable turnover in Tamil Nadu. The Court observed that the petitioner's explanations were disregarded in the impugned order, leading to an unsustainable decision. Consequently, the order dated 31.12.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remanded for re-consideration by the respondent. The petitioner was allowed to submit additional documents within fifteen days for a fresh decision within two months, including a personal hearing. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed as per the terms outlined in the judgment.
|
