9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 736 - HC - GSTImposition of tax due from the petitioner on account of different in the Return filed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B and the auto populated Input Tax Credit in GSTR-2A - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that there is no scope for auto population of the Input Tax Credit on IGST, the Court is inclined to come to rescue the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice in GST DRC 01 dated 10.08.2023. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to tax imposition due to discrepancy in GST returns filed by petitioner, Failure to respond to notices, Recovery of IGST amount, Auto population of Input Tax Credit, Quashing of impugned order, Remitting the case back to respondent, Timeline for filing reply and passing fresh orders, Bank account attachment, Disposal of Writ Petition. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the tax imposition by the respondent due to a discrepancy in the GST returns filed. The petitioner imported timber and paid IGST at the time of import. However, as the supplier was not a GST registered concern, the auto-population of Input Tax Credit in GSTR-2A was not possible. The petitioner failed to respond to various notices, including ASMT 10, GST DRC-01, and a personal hearing notice. The petitioner requested an opportunity to explain the case, stating that a significant sum had already been recovered by the respondent towards IGST. The Court considered the submissions from both parties and noted the impossibility of auto-populating Input Tax Credit on IGST due to the supplier not being GST registered. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent for fresh orders. The impugned order was treated as an addendum to the show cause notice in GST DRC 01, and the petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days. The respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. Given that the petitioner's bank account was attached, the Court ordered the lifting of the attachment, considering the petitioner's liberty to approach the respondent for fresh orders. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the outlined directions, with no costs imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.
|
