9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 889 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTValidity of adjudication order - discrepancies between the ITC claimed as per GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A - HELD THAT - For the limited purpose of the present matter, it is to be noticed that the table enclosed in the adjudication order would indicate that there is discrepancy between the ITC claimed as per GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Authority has disallowed such claim only on the ground of discrepancy. It must be noticed that Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 is made applicable specifically with respect to the financial year 2017-18 as is the case herein. This Court is of the prima facie view that the Circular is applicable to the present facts and on such ground, the adjudication order is set aside. In so far as the contention of counsel for revenue that the applicability of the circular may also depend on the facts of the case, the said aspect is left open to be decided upon remand. The order of sending the matter back to the authority is being passed also keeping in mind the request of the petitioner to be given one more opportunity to put forth their case before the Authority. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration - petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues involved: Setting aside of adjudication order based on discrepancies in ITC claimed as per GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, failure to follow prescribed procedure, applicability of Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, opportunity for petitioner to explain discrepancies.
Summary: The petitioner sought setting aside of an adjudication order due to discrepancies in ITC claimed as per GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to explain the discrepancies. Reference was made to Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, which outlines procedures for addressing discrepancies, and it was contended that non-following of such procedure prejudiced the petitioner. The Court noted the discrepancy and the applicability of the Circular specifically to the financial year in question. The Court held that the adjudicating authority should have considered the Circular regardless of the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was required to make an additional deposit of 10% of the tax amount as determined in the original adjudication order. In conclusion, the Court set aside the adjudication order, citing the applicability of the Circular and the need for the authority to follow prescribed procedures. The petitioner was granted another opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make an additional deposit.
|
