2024 (7) TMI 1101 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - time limitation - mismatch between the GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT - Although the petitioner has made several submissions touching upon the merits of the case, it is not required to give any observations on the same. Suffice to state that the petitioner can be given one opportunity to explain the case subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax with the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also file a reply within the aforesaid period. The Writ Petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 based on mismatch between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, demand confirmation without reply, limitation bar, opportunity for petitioner to explain case, depositing disputed tax, fresh order on merits, quashing impugned order, show cause notices, petitioner's right to be heard.

Analysis:

1. Impugned Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 28.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 by the respondent. The order confirmed the demand proposed in the notice in DRC 01 dated 29.09.2023 due to the petitioner's failure to file a reply. Despite no variation between the returns filed in GSTR 3B and GSTR 9, the demand was confirmed based on the mismatch between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, even though an amendment was effective only from 01.01.2022. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was also time-barred.

2. Opportunity for Petitioner:
The court refrained from making observations on the case's merits but granted the petitioner an opportunity to explain subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax with the respondent within 30 days from receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within the same period. The respondent was instructed to issue a fresh order on merits within 2 months, treating the quashed impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notices, emphasizing the petitioner's right to be heard before final orders.

3. Judgment and Closure:
The Writ Petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The judgment provided a detailed directive for the petitioner to address the assessment issues, deposit the disputed tax, and ensured a fair process by allowing the petitioner to present their case and be heard before the final decision. The court emphasized compliance with the law and procedural fairness in the assessment process.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the challenge to the assessment order, the petitioner's opportunity to explain their case, the directive for depositing disputed tax, and the procedural steps to be followed for a fresh order on merits.