9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 140 - HC - GSTChallenge to order under Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 - Mismatch between the Return filed by the petitioner in GSTR 3B and the auto populated information relating to the input tax credit in its Form GSTR 2A - HELD THAT - The provisions of the CGST Rules, 2017, has undergone series of changes from its inception. Rule 36(4) particularly has undergone changes. This aspect ought to have been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. P rima facie , the difference that is attributable between the GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B is on account of mismatch for the supplies made by RAMCO. It is 10.53% of total credit, which is less than 20% as per the amended provisions of Rule 36(4) as it stood till 09.10.2019 vide Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. Since aspect has not been considered by the respondent, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the provisions as it stood amended by Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax dated 09.10.2019. All the recovery proceedings are therefore directed to be kept in abeyance pending orders in the remand proceedings - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Impugned order under Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 based on mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A input tax credit. Discrepancy in input tax credit availed by petitioner from Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation (TNCC) Limited and RAMCO Limited. Interpretation of Rule 36 of CGST Rule, 2017 before and after amendments. Validity of impugned order and consideration of Rule 36(4) changes. Judgment on setting aside impugned order and remitting case back for fresh orders. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order passed by the respondent under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18, citing a discrepancy between the input tax credit claimed in GSTR 3B and the auto-populated information in GSTR 2A. The mismatch in input tax credit was detailed, showing a significant difference in CGST and SGST amounts. The petitioner responded to the notices, explaining the differences, particularly concerning supplies from TNCC Limited and RAMCO Limited. Regarding the supplies from TNCC Limited, the petitioner provided a certificate to show no discrepancy in the availed credit between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. However, for supplies from RAMCO Limited, although the petitioner had records to support no discrepancy, a certificate from RAMCO Limited was lacking. The petitioner argued that Rule 36 of CGST Rule, 2017 allowed a 20% variation initially, which was later amended to 10%. The petitioner highlighted the changes in Rule 36(4) before and after the amendments, emphasizing the 20% limit on credit availed for invoices not uploaded by suppliers. The petitioner contended that the denied credit was less than 20%, rendering the impugned order arbitrary. The court noted the changes in Rule 36(4) and set aside the impugned order, remitting the case back to the respondent for fresh orders based on the provisions as amended by Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. The court directed all recovery proceedings to be halted pending the fresh orders, to be issued within six weeks. The judgment allowed the writ petition, with no costs incurred, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.
|
