2024 (9) TMI 164 - HC - GST

Denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - difference in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B - failure to submit required documents - petitioner had paid the entire tax and also filed monthly returns and claimed ITC in GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - Owing to the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce required documents before the Adjudicating Authority concerned, has resulted in the impugned order. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in possession of required documents, particularly, the copy of invoices, and is ready to produce the same, if an opportunity is granted, this Court has to consider the request of the petitioner, since, only in the absence of documents, the Adjudicating Authority has passed the order dated 28.12.2023, based on which, the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner, and in order to render justice, this Court is inclined to consider the request of the petitioner, since justice has to be meted out, and failure to do so, would amount to denial of justice. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner is now in possession of supportive documents, and is ready to produce the same, if an opportunity is granted, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability for the mistake committed at the supplier end. The impugned order dated 30.12.2023, which was passed by the first respondent based on the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Authority concerned for fresh consideration, who shall, upon the petitioner filing their additional reply along with all supportive documents, as that are required by the Authority within a period of two weeks, shall issue a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner granting 14 days' time and after hearing the petitioner, in full, shall pass final orders in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B comparison.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, challenged an order denying ITC based on discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B. The respondent issued a show cause notice denying ITC of a specific amount towards CGST and SGST. The petitioner claimed to have paid the tax and filed returns, citing errors by suppliers for the discrepancies. The petitioner submitted a certificate from suppliers and requested an opportunity to file necessary documents.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent failed to consider the certificate and supporting documents provided by the petitioner, leading to the order against the petitioner. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner was willing to submit the required documents if given another chance. The Government Advocate acknowledged the recovery of disputed tax from the petitioner and supported the petitioner's request for an opportunity to submit the necessary documents.

The Court noted that the impugned order was passed due to the petitioner's failure to produce required documents, despite possessing them. However, considering the petitioner's possession of supportive documents now and the fault lying with the suppliers for the initial errors, the Court found merit in the petitioner's request for a fresh opportunity to present the documents.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Authority for fresh consideration. The Authority was directed to allow the petitioner to file additional replies with all necessary documents, grant a personal hearing, and pass final orders in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed on the terms mentioned, with no costs imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.