9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 56 - HC - GSTValidity of Assessment order - demand of GST - petitioner asserts that an error was committed by entering the same invoice number in multiple e-way bills - No reasons for rejecting petitioner's reply - HELD THAT - From the petitioner's reply dated 28.08.2023, it appears that the petitioner conceded that an inadvertent error was made by including the same invoice number under multiple e-way bills. The petitioner also attached the relevant bill copies with such reply. The findings recorded in the impugned order discloses that the reply of the petitioner was noticed, but the reasons for rejecting such reply and, in particular, the documents annexed thereto, do not find place in the impugned order. For such reason, the impugned order calls for interference. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for re-consideration. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. W.P is disposed of on the above terms - Consequently, W.M.P is closed.
Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order u/s GST enactments for error in e-way bills, rejection of reply, suppression of turnover, and lack of reasons in impugned order.
Challenge to assessment order: The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 30.09.2023 on the grounds that their reply and documents were not considered. The petitioner, a registered person under GST enactments, had issued six invoices during the assessment period 2018-2019. An error was made by entering the same invoice number in multiple e-way bills. A show cause notice was issued on 10.05.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 28.08.2023 explaining the mistake and attaching bill copies. The impugned order was eventually issued without discussing the petitioner's reply or providing reasons for rejection. Contentions of the petitioner: The petitioner's counsel argued that the inadvertent error was explained in the reply dated 28.08.2023 with relevant bill copies, which were not considered in the impugned order. It was contended that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to present their case to the assessing officer and that there was no suppression of sales. Respondent's submissions: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent pointed out that the bills submitted by the petitioner did not contain the GST registration number. He argued that the dispute involved questions of fact that should be addressed in appellate proceedings. Impugned order analysis: The impugned order noted the inadvertent error made by the petitioner in including the same invoice number in multiple e-way bills. It mentioned that notices were sent to the taxpayer for replies and personal hearings, which were not responded to adequately. The order confirmed the proposal and passed orders u/s 74 of TNGST / CGST Acts 2017 without providing reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply and documents. Judgment and directions: The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice with all relevant documents within fifteen days. The assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh assessment order within two months from the receipt of the petitioner's reply. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred.
|
