2025 (1) TMI 1421 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed by the 5th respondent u/s 73 of the JGST Act 2017 for the financial year 2019-20 - comparison of GSTR-3B and e-way bill - HELD THAT - In the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent there is no reference to the contention raised by the petitioner at all and it is simply stated that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. Since the purpose of issuing ASMT-10 is to invite a reply and then consider the said reply. It is failed to understand why the 5th respondent did not aver to the contention raised in the reply filed by the petitioner and brushed it aside by simply saying it is not satisfactory. The impugned order dt. 31.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 5th respondent who shall furnish to the petitioner the basis of making the demand i.e. breakup as to how the difference amount was arrived at; such information be furnished within two weeks from today; petitioner is permitted to file a reply thereto within four weeks from the date of furnishing of the said information by the 5th respondent; personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner; and then a reasoned order be passed after considering the reply of the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

**Summary:**In the case before the Jharkhand High Court, the petitioner challenged an order dated August 31, 2024, issued by the 5th respondent under Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017, concerning the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner had responded to an ASMT-10 notice under Rule 99, questioning the basis for comparing taxes paid in GSTR-3B with e-way bill data, arguing that "the base information of both the statements is different." The 5th respondent's order failed to address this contention, merely stating that the petitioner's reply was "not satisfactory."The court found that the purpose of ASMT-10 is to solicit a reply and consider it, and the 5th respondent's dismissal of the petitioner's concerns without addressing them was inadequate. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the 5th respondent. The court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner with a breakdown of the demand within two weeks, allow the petitioner to respond within four weeks, and conduct a personal hearing. A reasoned order must then be issued after considering the petitioner's reply, which should be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed.