9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 341 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was not taken into consideration - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the GSTR 1 statement as well as between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A - HELD THAT - In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has explained the alleged discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 by pointing out that the discrepancy is on account of not reckoning the total value of credit notes. The petitioner has placed on record the GSTR 1 statement and the annual return in GSTR 9. Both these documents reflect the total value of credit notices as Rs. 68,91,320/-. As regards the variation in input tax credit between the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, the petitioner has explained the difference by pointing out that one of the suppliers, S.M.Network, did not reflect invoices for supplies made by such supplier. In spite of the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and the annual return in GSTR 9 being available, no reasons are specified as to why the petitioner's explanation was rejected. Even with regard to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, in spite of the petitioner enclosing the relevant invoices to explain the discrepancy, the impugned order does not discuss the explanation and record reasons for rejecting the same. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 28.09.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Assailed order based on petitioner's reply to show cause notice not considered. Summary: The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.09.2023 due to the non-consideration of their reply to a show cause notice. The notice alleged discrepancies in the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns compared to GSTR 1 statement and auto-populated GSTR 2A. The petitioner responded on 26.05.2023, but the impugned order was issued on 28.09.2023 without taking their explanation into account. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 was due to not considering the value of credit notes. They pointed out the total value of credit notes in GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 9. Regarding the difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, it was explained that a supplier, S.M.Network, did not reflect invoices in their returns. The petitioner's explanation and relevant documents were not considered in the impugned order. The Government Advocate stated that the petitioner was notified of the discrepancies and asked to provide supporting documents. As the petitioner failed to do so, the tax proposal was confirmed. The impugned order lacked reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation and did not discuss the provided invoices to explain discrepancies. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months. The case was disposed of on the above terms, and related motions were closed without costs.
|
