2024 (6) TMI 476 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order u/s GST ASMT-10 - non-submission of required documents - rejection of petitioner's reply - HELD THAT - The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's reply on the ground that such reply was descriptive and on the ground that no re-conciliation statements were uploaded. In the face of the reply to the notice in Form ASMT-10, this conclusion is unsustainable. It should be noticed, however, that the petitioner has also failed to submit all relevant invoices pertaining to alleged expenses as to justify the non-inclusion of such expenses in the taxable turnover. Nonetheless, the order calls for interference since the explanation of the petitioner was not duly considered. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit any additional documents to explain the disparity between the taxable turnover reported in its returns and the details contained in Form 26AS. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order u/s GST ASMT-10, rejection of petitioner's reply, non-submission of required documents, sustainability of findings, incomplete reply, interference sought due to lack of consideration of petitioner's explanation.

Summary:

The High Court of Madras addressed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 u/s GST ASMT-10. The petitioner had replied to a notice and provided documents through their Chartered Accountant, asserting that the expenses subject to TDS deduction did not form part of the revenue, supported by a reconciliation statement and sample invoices. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued and responded to, leading to the impugned assessment order.

The petitioner contended that the findings in the impugned order, stating that the reconciliation statement was not enclosed, were unsustainable based on the Chartered Accountant's reply. The Government Advocate highlighted that the required documents were not submitted by the petitioner, justifying the impugned order.

The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's reply as incomplete, citing the absence of reconciliation statements despite the Chartered Accountant's reference to it. While acknowledging the petitioner's failure to provide all relevant invoices, the Court found the rejection of the reply unjustified as the explanation was not duly considered. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for re-consideration, allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents within two weeks to clarify the disparity in reported turnover.

The Court directed the assessing officer to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh assessment order within two months of receiving the petitioner's reply. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed accordingly.