2024 (7) TMI 410 - HC - GST

Challenge to recovery action based on the impugned order - tax proposal was confirmed entirely on account of not appreciating the inadvertent error committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner has placed on record the GSTR 3B return for January in the assessment period 2018-2019. The GSTR 1 statement purportedly for July in the assessment period 2019-2020 is also on record. The outward taxable value pertaining to IGST in these two documents tallies. The petitioner also placed on record the tax liability comparison report from the GST portal. This document also indicates an excess in liability when the GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 statement are compared. Such excess is Rs. 4,17,577/-. In these circumstances, a prima facie case is made out for consideration of the rectification petition. Since such petition is pending, it is just and appropriate that the same be disposed of expeditiously. The petition is disposed of without any order as to costs by directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the rectification petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order dated 22.01.2024 regarding GSTR 3B return for January 2018-2019 and GSTR 1 statement for January 2019 filed belatedly for the assessment period 2019-2020 instead of the correct assessment period 2018-2019.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order based on the GSTR 1 statement, which was filed belatedly for the wrong assessment period. The petitioner filed a rectification petition due to an inadvertent error, seeking relief from the recovery action threatened based on the impugned order dated 22.01.2024.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the error in the tax proposal, emphasizing that the mistake was inadvertent and the rectification petition remains pending. The Government Advocate for the respondent accepted notice and assured that the rectification petition would be addressed promptly.

The court examined the GSTR 3B return for January 2018-2019 and the GSTR 1 statement for July 2019-2020, noting that the outward taxable value pertaining to IGST in both documents matched. A tax liability comparison report from the GST portal also confirmed an excess liability of Rs. 4,17,577 when comparing the two statements. The court found a prima facie case for considering the rectification petition and directed the respondent to dispose of it expeditiously.

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to consider and resolve the rectification petition within three months from the date of the order. The respondent was restrained from initiating recovery or coercive measures until the rectification petition was addressed. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.