9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 216 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order - discrepancy between the GSTR 1 statement and the GSTR 3B returns - imposition of 100% penalty by invoking Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax liability was arrived at by noticing the discrepancy between the GSTR 7 and 1 returns, on the one hand, and the GSTR 3B returns on the other. Penalty has been imposed at 100% of the tax dues by invoking Section 74. It is also noticeable that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 12.04.2023, which is prior to the date of issuance of the impugned order. This sum represents about 10% of the total tax dues. The petitioner has agreed to remit a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which would aggregate to about 20% of the tax dues. In the overall facts and circumstances, since the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued, the interest of justice warrants the provision of an opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 19.04.2023 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the tax demand within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order u/s 74 of Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, imposition of 100% penalty, discrepancy between GSTR 1, GSTR 3B returns, timely payment made by petitioner, lack of opportunity for petitioner to be heard before issuance of order.
Summary: 1. The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged an assessment order dated 19.04.2023, citing discrepancy between GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner remitted Rs. 3,00,000 towards tax liability before the order was issued, attributing the delay to delayed payments from government departments and contesting the 100% penalty imposed. 2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the payment was made before the impugned order and should have been considered. Reference was made to Form GST DRC-03 for the payment. 3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the penalty under Section 74 of the Act was unwarranted, and the petitioner was willing to remit an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as a condition for remand. 4. The respondent's counsel stated that proper notices were served, including an intimation, show cause notice, and personal hearing notice. Since the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings, he contended that there was no basis for interference. 5. Upon review, it was found that the tax liability was determined based on the discrepancy between the GSTR returns, with a 100% penalty imposed u/s 74. The petitioner had already paid Rs. 3,00,000 before the order was issued, representing 10% of the tax dues. The petitioner agreed to remit an additional Rs. 3,00,000, totaling 20% of the tax dues. Due to lack of prior hearing, the order was set aside, with the condition for the petitioner to pay the additional sum within three weeks. 6. The impugned order dated 19.04.2023 was set aside, with the petitioner required to remit an additional Rs. 3,00,000 within three weeks and submit a reply to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from receiving the reply. 7. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed accordingly.
|
