9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 856 - HC - GSTDifference in turnover declared in GSTR 3B on comparison with the GSTR 1 statement - reversal of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT - The respondent recognised the fact that the petitioner paid amounts due with regard to the difference between GSTR 1 and 3B on 09.01.2023. In spite of noticing the same, the respondent recorded at page no.23 of the typed set that the taxable person did not pay the tax dues within 15 days of the receipt of the notice dated 17.03.2023. This conclusion is contrary to the documents on record. As regards the reversal of ITC in respect of purchases from Sri Vela Hardware and Paints, it is unclear as to the basis for concluding that the petitioner had purchased paint in view of the petitioner's reply dated 23.09.2023 and the documents annexed thereto. Since the petitioner's reply and the documents annexed thereto were not taken into consideration, the impugned order is unsustainable as regards these issues. The impugned order is set aside in so far as it pertains to the issues relating to difference between GSTR 1 and 3B and reversal of ITC with regard to purchases from Sri Vela Hardware and Paints. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for reconsideration only with regard to these two issues. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh order with regard to these two issues within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed off.
Issues Involved: Challenge to an order dated 29.09.2023 in a writ petition regarding proceedings initiated against the petitioner following an inspection.
Summary: 1. The petitioner challenged the order, highlighting two main issues. Firstly, the difference in turnover declared in GSTR 3B compared to the GSTR 1 statement, where the petitioner had paid the tax dues prior to the intimation date. Secondly, the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in relation to purchases from a specific supplier, which the petitioner argued was used for machinery repairs and not for building paint as concluded in the impugned order. 2. The respondent imposed penalties due to the petitioner's failure to discharge liabilities towards CGST and SGST, despite partial payment made by the petitioner. The respondent's conclusion regarding the tax dues payment timeline and the misinterpretation of the purchases from the supplier were found to be contrary to the documents on record, rendering the impugned order unsustainable on these issues. 3. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order concerning the GSTR discrepancies and ITC reversal issues, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within three months, allowing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. 4. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
|
