2024 (6) TMI 886 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - petitioner's reply was taken into consideration - disparity between the return in Form GSTR 3B and the supplier's return in Form GSTR 1 - HELD THAT - Although the receipt of the reply dated 13.09.2023 is not admitted by the respondent, on perusal thereof, it appears that the petitioner explained the disparity between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the GSTR 1 return of his supplier by stating that such disparity arose on account of an error by the supplier in reporting b2c turnover. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was negligent in not uploading the reply on the portal and in not participating in proceedings that culminated in the impugned assessment order. The petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed demand as a condition for remand. In these circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to place the relevant documents on record and contest the tax demand. Solely for that reason, the impugned order warrants interference. The impugned order dated 15.12.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The assessment order challenged based on consideration of petitioner's reply. Discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns. Application of circular No.183 during the assessment period. Non-receipt of petitioner's reply by the respondent.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner, a dealer in oil products registered under GST, contested an assessment order citing a disparity between GSTR 3B and supplier's GSTR 1 returns. The petitioner clarified that the supplier's error in reporting b2c turnover caused the disparity, rectified in the annual return. The petitioner's physical reply dated 13.09.2023 was referenced, supported by an acknowledgment. The petitioner argued that circular No.183's procedure should have been followed, and proceedings against the supplier under Section 42(3) should have been initiated.

Non-receipt of Reply:
The respondent claimed non-receipt of the petitioner's reply dated 13.09.2023 and disputed the validity of the acknowledgment provided. Despite this, the content of the reply explained the disparity in returns due to the supplier's error. The court noted the petitioner's negligence in not uploading the reply on the portal and not engaging in the assessment proceedings.

Judgment and Remand:
The court, considering the interest of justice, quashed the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply within the same period. Upon compliance, the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh assessment order within two months. The case was disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred.