9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 594 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order - discrepancy between the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - proceedings in relation to the same assessment period and pertaining to the same issue were dropped by the Central GST authorities - HELD THAT - Both from the order dated 01.08.2022 of the Central GST authorities and the reply dated 17.08.2023 of the petitioner to the intimation from the State GST authorities, it appears that the petitioner made consequential adjustments to reverse the disparity between the GSTR 1 and 3B returns while filing the GSTR 3B return for the month of April 2018. Although it appears that the petitioner did not point out the order dated 01.08.2022 of the Central GST authorities, nonetheless, a case is made out for re-consideration in the light of evidence placed before this Court. For such reason, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the evidence discussed in this order and issue a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to assessment order based on dropped proceedings by Central GST authorities, consequential adjustments in GSTR returns, failure to point out Central GST authorities' decision to State GST authorities, interference with impugned order, remand for reconsideration. Analysis: The writ petition challenges an assessment order dated 07.09.2023 primarily because proceedings related to the same assessment period and issue were dropped by Central GST authorities. The petitioner had received a notice from Central GST authorities in 2022 regarding returns filed for the assessment period 2017-18. After replying to the notice on various dates in June and July 2022, it was concluded that the petitioner had rectified the discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns by adjusting Rs.21,39,821/- in the GSTR 3B return for April 2018. Despite this, State GST authorities initiated action for the same period and issues. The petitioner pointed out the adjustments made to the State authorities, but the impugned order was still issued. The Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner failed to inform State GST authorities about the Central GST authorities' decision not to take further action on the issue. The Court noted that although the petitioner did not specifically mention the Central GST authorities' decision in their reply to the State authorities, evidence showed consequential adjustments were made in the GSTR returns. The Court found grounds for reconsideration based on the evidence presented, leading to interference with the impugned order. As a result, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to reevaluate the issue in light of the evidence discussed in the order and provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, within two months from receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed.
|
