9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1189 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - excess claim of Input Tax Credit, without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner - HELD THAT - On going through Form GSTR-2A, as available on the portal and from it prima facie appears that the same has not been carefully examined by the Proper Officer. In view thereof, the impugned order calls for a remittance of the case. The impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set aside. Show Cause Notice is restored on the file of the Proper Officer, who shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law after examining the reply filed by the Petitioner and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3) of the Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved: Impugned order creating demand due to alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-2019 without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner.
Summary: Issue 1: Alleged Excess Claim of Input Tax Credit The Petitioner challenged the order dated 15.03.2024, which created a demand against the Petitioner for an alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-2019. The impugned order noted the absence of a reply or explanation from the taxpayer. Details: The Petitioner contended that a reply was indeed filed, albeit belatedly on 10.03.2024, before the impugned order was issued. The reply highlighted that documents like Form GSTR-2A, GSTR-8A, and GSTR-9 available on the portal indicated no excess claim of Input Tax Credit by the Petitioner. The Proper Officer failed to consider this reply, leading to the challenge. Issue 2: Judicial Intervention Upon hearing the parties, the Court examined Form GSTR-2A and found that the Proper Officer had not thoroughly reviewed it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2024. A Show Cause Notice was reinstated for re-adjudication by the Proper Officer, who must examine the Petitioner's reply and provide a personal hearing within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act. Conclusion: The Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. The petition was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of proper examination and consideration of documents before creating demands based on alleged excess claims of Input Tax Credit.
|
