9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 771 - HC - GSTChallnege to impugned order on the premise that the same supplies are subject to assessment more than once - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT - The respondent would submit that though there seem to be some element of overlap, it needs to be verified whether the supplies covered by the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 and the order dropping the proposal dated 21.08.2024 are in respect of the very same / identical taxable supplies on which Input Tax Credit has been claimed. In view thereof, the impugned order is set-aside with liberty to the respondent authority to issue a fresh notice to examine whether the subject supplies in the order dated 21.08.2023 and the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 are one and the same and then proceed if warranted in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the petitioner, represented by Mr. G. Shiva Kumar, challenged an impugned order dated 18.07.2024. The petitioner argued that the same supplies were subjected to multiple assessments for the period 2019-20. The first assessment proceeding, initiated by a notice on 30.05.2023, concluded with an order on 21.08.2024, dropping the proposal to reverse the Input Tax Credit (ITC). The second proceeding, initiated on 29.08.2023, resulted in confirming the reversal of ITC amounting to Rs. 13,28,002/-, although initially proposed at Rs. 54,06,825/-.
The petitioner contended that the ITC rejection of Rs. 13,28,002/- in the impugned order pertained to the same supplies previously addressed, where the reversal proposal was dropped. The respondent's counsel, Mr. C. Harsha Raj, acknowledged a possible overlap and suggested verification to determine if the supplies in question were identical in both proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order, granting the respondent authority the liberty to issue a fresh notice to verify whether the supplies in both orders were indeed the same. The writ petition was disposed of, with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
