9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 277 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order - two separate proceedings were initiated in respect of the same assessment period and pertaining to the same issue - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, considerable confusion has been created by initiating two separate proceedings in respect of the same assessment period and in respect of the same issue. The rectification order is also unclear with regard to the reasons for rectification. Such order indicates that there is no tax liability. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to another opportunity to explain the disparity between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns. However, the petitioner should be put on terms. The impugned order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards the disputed tax demand made therein. Such remittance shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order on grounds of initiating two separate proceedings for the same assessment period and issue.
Summary: 1. The petitioner, a trader in iron and steel, challenged an assessment order dated 13.07.2023, issued after another assessment order dated 29.09.2023 for the same assessment period, both related to a disparity between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns. 2. The petitioner communicated payment of Rs. 1.90 lakhs for the disparity and a rectification order was issued for the second assessment order. The petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable as it relates to the same period and issue. 3. The respondent, represented by Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, acknowledged the two proceedings initiated for the same period and stated that the confirmed demand under the impugned order was Rs. 21,95,668/- towards CGST and SGST, along with interest and penalty. He contended that the payment of Rs. 1.90 lakhs did not discharge the liability. 4. The petitioner agreed to remit Rs. 2 lakhs towards the disputed tax liability under the impugned order dated 13.07.2023. 5. The Court noted the confusion caused by the two separate proceedings and the unclear rectification order. The petitioner was granted another opportunity to explain the disparity, with the condition to remit Rs. 2 lakhs within two weeks in addition to the earlier payment of Rs. 1.90 lakhs. 6. The impugned order was quashed subject to the mentioned condition, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for a fresh assessment order within two months. 7. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
