2024 (10) TMI 549 - HC - GST

Availment of ITC in excess of the credit reflected in the GSTR-2A statement - Mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A - ITC not reversed on the basis of debit reflected in GSTR-2A - E-Way bill not generated for the movement of goods - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the above discrepancies - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is already paid, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the bank attachment shall be lifted. The impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objection is filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order for assessment year 2019-2020 regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in excess, rejection of ITC claim based on discrepancies in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, imposition of penalty, opportunity for explanation, recent judgment reference, willingness to pay 25% of disputed tax, bank account attachment, conditions for lifting bank attachment, submission of objections, timeline for compliance.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the impugned order issued by the respondent regarding the assessment year 2019-2020, where the respondent found discrepancies in the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner in comparison to the GSTR-2A statement. The respondent issued various notices and forms, leading to the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner contended that proper hearing was not provided before reversing the ITC and imposing the penalty, leading to the filing of the writ petition to challenge the order.

The assessment order highlighted three main grounds for rejecting the ITC claim: mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, failure to reverse ITC based on debit in GSTR-2A, and non-generation of E-Way bill for goods movement. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain these discrepancies and relied on a recent judgment by the court in a similar case to support their argument.

During the proceedings, the petitioner expressed readiness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and requested a final opportunity to present objections before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner had already paid a certain amount, which they proposed to adjust in the payment of the disputed tax. The respondent did not object to this proposal, leading to a discussion on lifting the attachment on the petitioner's bank account upon payment of the agreed amount.

Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, adjusting the amount already paid. Upon compliance, the bank attachment would be lifted. The impugned order was treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections within a specified timeline. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in the revival of the assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.