9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 800 - HC - GSTDemand of tax liability - demand on account of the difference between GSTR 01 and GSTR 3B and also between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- to the credit of the respondent from his Electronic Cash Register. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Time bar in filing the Writ Petition. 2. Tax liability due to differences in GSTR 1, GSTR 2A, and GSTR 3B. 3. Failure to file a reply to notices prior to the impugned order. 4. Appellate remedy being time-barred under Section 107 of GST Enactments. 5. Granting partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent. Issue 1: Time bar in filing the Writ Petition The petitioner approached the court long after the impugned order was passed in GST DRC 07 dated 16.08.2023. The respondent argued that the Writ Petition was time-barred and should be dismissed due to latches, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the court considered the petitioner's case on merits and decided to grant partial relief. Issue 2: Tax liability due to differences in GSTR 1, GSTR 2A, and GSTR 3B The court noted the tax liability confirmed against the petitioner due to differences between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B, as well as GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The amounts confirmed included tax balance, penalty balance, and interest balance for both sets of differences, totaling to significant amounts. The petitioner, running a small grocery shop, requested an opportunity to explain the case, highlighting the challenges faced in responding to notices posted on the GST common portal. Issue 3: Failure to file a reply to notices prior to the impugned order The petitioner admitted to failing to file a reply to the notices issued before the impugned order, attributing it to the notices being posted on the GST common portal. This failure was a point of contention in the case, with the respondent opposing the petitioner's request for an opportunity to explain the case. Issue 4: Appellate remedy being time-barred under Section 107 of GST Enactments The respondent argued that the appellate remedy was time-barred under Section 107 of the GST Enactments, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. This argument was presented as a basis for dismissing the Writ Petition. However, the court, after considering the arguments from both sides, decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent for fresh orders. Issue 5: Granting partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent After considering the submissions from both parties, the court decided to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent. The petitioner was required to deposit a specified amount to the credit of the respondent before fresh orders could be passed. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, and the petitioner was given a deadline to file a reply to the notice. The court emphasized the need for expeditious handling of the case, with fresh orders expected within three months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before the final decision. The Writ Petition was allowed with the provided directions, and no costs were imposed.
|
