9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 253 - HC - GSTRecovery of ITC availed - Discrepancies between the credit availed by the petitioner in its Return in GSTR 3B and the auto populated Return in GSTR 2A - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the petitioner has admitted the liability on the CGST and SGST and paid the amount together with the interest on 20.12.2023, this Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order which confirmed the demand on IGST and the interest payable thereon, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the credit of the second respondent from its Electronic Cash Register. The petitioner shall also file a reply to the notice that preceded the impugned order, along with the said deposit within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order - It is expected that the second respondent shall pass a fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Needless to state, before passing the order, the petitioner shall be heard. Petition allowed.
Issues: Discrepancies in Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, liability on CGST, IGST, and SGST, delay in appearance before the second respondent, setting aside the impugned order, deposit requirement, filing a reply to the notice, passing fresh orders by the second respondent.
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras addressed the discrepancies in the Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner had paid the disputed amounts related to CGST and SGST promptly but contested the demand for IGST of Rs. 22,340, supported by documents to substantiate their claim. The petitioner, being a small-time dealer, cited inability to appear before the second respondent before the impugned order was passed. The court acknowledged the petitioner's admission of liability on CGST and SGST, granting partial relief by setting aside the impugned order confirming the demand on IGST, subject to a deposit of Rs. 10,000 to the credit of the second respondent from the Electronic Cash Register. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the preceding notice along with the deposit within 30 days, treating the quashed order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The second respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before the decision. The court allowed the Writ Petition with the mentioned directions, without imposing any costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The judgment aimed to address the issues of discrepancies in Input Tax Credit, liability on different types of taxes, procedural delays, and the need for a fair opportunity for the petitioner to defend their case before the tax authorities. The decision emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring a just outcome based on the merits of the case.
|
