2024 (4) TMI 717 - HC - GST

Disparity between the petitioner s GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - error occurred on account of reflecting an amount of Rs. 59, 430.68/- each wrongly towards CGST and SGST instead of IGST - HELD THAT - On examining the petitioner s reply dated 17.03.2023 it appears prima facie that the disparity was on account of wrongly specifying higher amounts in the GSTR 3B returns as regards output CGST and output SGST. This aspect was not duly taken note of while issuing the impugned order. At the same time it should be noticed that the impugned order was issued in June 2023 and the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. On instructions learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. The impugned order calls for interference albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. Therefore the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon being satisfied that the above mentioned amount was received the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The disparity between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns, challenge to an order dated 09.06.2023, limitation for filing an appeal, remittance of disputed tax demand, interference with the impugned order.

Disparity between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns:
The petitioner received a show cause notice regarding the disparity between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner explained the disparity, attributing it to an error in reflecting amounts under CGST and SGST instead of IGST. Despite the explanation, the impugned order was issued. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the disparity could be clarified by adding the amounts specified against CGST and SGST outputs and comparing them with the disparity related to output IGST.

Challenge to the order dated 09.06.2023:
The respondent argued that the period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired, thus no interference was warranted. However, upon examining the petitioner's reply, it was observed that the disparity was due to incorrectly specifying higher amounts in the GSTR 3B returns for output CGST and SGST. The Court noted that the impugned order did not consider this aspect adequately. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Remittance of disputed tax demand and interference with the impugned order:
The Court decided to quash the impugned order subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within fifteen days. Once the amount is received, the respondent is directed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred, and related motions were closed accordingly.