9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 240 - HC - GSTInput Tax Credit - Non-production of any documentary evidence, in the form of a certificate from the supplier - Difference between the Input Tax Credit availed in GSTR 3B and auto populated Input Tax Credit in GSTR 2A - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner for the period in dispute between 01.05.2018 to 30.04.2019 also indicates that there was only balance after adjustment. The petitioner ought to have given a clear explanation - It is noticed that the table to the reply dated 26.02.2024, which has been extracted above gives an exaggerate figure. The Court cannot decide the correctness of the same. Prima facie it appears to be an credit tax position explained by the petitioner is incorrect as it is imposible to avail IGST amount of Rs. 37,22,528/-, each under CGST credit and SGST credit. Be that as it may, the Court is inclined to give temporary relief to the petitioner by directing the respondent to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance for a period of three months from today. The petitioner may at its discretion file a revision petition under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments within a period of 30 days from today. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order demanding Rs. 64,15,176/- towards CGST and SGST with interest and penalty. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, demanding Rs. 64,15,176/- (Rs. 32,07,588/- towards CGST and Rs. 32,07,588/- towards SGST) along with interest and penalty. The demand was confirmed under the SGST Act and CGST Act for the period 2018-19. The petitioner received notices in ASMT 10 dated 27.11.2022 and DRC 01 dated 23.08.2023, to which responses were submitted on 16.11.2023 and 26.02.2024. The notice in DRC 01 focused on the variance between Input Tax Credit in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. The petitioner's explanation was deemed unacceptable as it lacked documentary evidence as per Circular No.183/2023. Despite explanations, the respondent confirmed the demand, leading to the challenge. The respondent argued that the impugned order was free from irregularities and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was stated in the order that the petitioner did not have excess Input Tax Credit concerning IGST, justifying the confirmed demand. The petitioner, in response, presented details from the Electronic Credit Ledger showing a discrepancy in the IGST amounts claimed under CGST and SGST credits. The court noted the inconsistency and directed the respondent to halt recovery proceedings for three months, allowing the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 161 of the GST enactments within 30 days. If the petition is rejected, the petitioner can file a statutory appeal within 30 days thereafter. Recovery proceedings will remain suspended during this period. Failure to file the petition within the stipulated time empowers the respondent to proceed legally. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
|
