2024 (1) TMI 1051 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - difference in outward taxable turnover between GSTR-3B, GSTR- 1 and e-way bills - petitioner is unable to produce documentary evidence in support of movement of goods and payment details - HELD THAT - When reply dated 07.01.2023 and 03.07.2023 are considered cumulatively, it follows that the petitioner informed the respondent that he is unable to reply to defect no.2 and the circular trading defect on account of non availability of relevant documents. The impugned order also records that the petitioner could not respond to these defects as a result of non availability of documents - In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, interference is warranted in this case because the non availability of documents, for reasons outlined above, impacted two out of the three defects in respect of which an order adverse to the petitioner was issued. Therefore, solely with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to these defects, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner shall submit all relevant documents within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved: Assessment order for financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 under GST laws challenged.

Summary:

Issue 1: Responding to Defects in Assessment Order
The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing non-availability of relevant documents for defects related to outward taxable turnover, circular trading, and cancellation of e-way bills. The petitioner informed the respondent about the lack of documents in replies dated 07.01.2023 and 03.07.2023. The respondent, in a reasoned order, considered the petitioner's submissions but issued a composite assessment order with four defects, impacting the petitioner's ability to respond to two defects due to the unavailability of records held by Central GST authorities.

Issue 2: Legal Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the claim regarding circular trading could not be addressed without relevant documents, and requested an opportunity to establish the genuineness of purchases after receiving the necessary documents. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the impugned order was reasoned and dropped certain claims after considering the petitioner's replies and submissions during the hearing. He suggested that any infirmity in the order could be addressed through a statutory appeal.

Issue 3: Court Decision
Considering the cumulative replies of the petitioner indicating the non-availability of documents for specific defects, the court found that the lack of records impacted the petitioner's ability to respond to two out of three defects in the assessment order. In exercising discretionary jurisdiction, the court concluded that interference was warranted to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to address these defects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter for re-consideration, directing the petitioner to submit all relevant documents within three weeks for a fresh assessment within four months thereafter.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions on the mentioned terms without costs, closing the related miscellaneous petitions.