2025 (4) TMI 733 - HC - GST

Challenge to order of adjudication - petition dismissed on the ground that there are appellate remedy available and the writ petitioner has to avail such remedy - HELD THAT - In the case on hand the matters listed in serial nos.6 7 8 and 9 of the tabulated statement alone are in dispute. So far as the 6 and 7 are concerned according to the department IGST was taken and utilized in GSTR-9 and the reason given by the appellant is that they have utilized this amount in the GSTR-9. Similar is the allegation in respect of serial no.7. According to the appellant/assessee the same stands reflected in the GSTR-9 and only the GSTR-3B it was not reflected - This aspect can be verified departmentally by various means and the matter need not linger further before this court as any further delay will not be in the interest of revenue. So far as the serial nos.8 and 9 are concerned the allegation is difference of taxable value of invoice. The reason given is the taxable value of invoice certified by recipient to be less than what was raised by the instant recipient - this issue also can be verified by the department in the portal and therefore the matter requires to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in the matter only concerning the above four items as mentioned in the tabulated statement in page 9 of the adjudication order namely serial nos.6 7 8 and 9. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

In the case before the Calcutta High Court, the appellant challenged an adjudication order dated July 27, 2023, which was dismissed by a Single Bench on the grounds of available appellate remedies. The appeal focused on discrepancies identified by the department in the adjudication order, specifically concerning items listed as serial numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 in a tabulated statement. The issues involved the utilization and reflection of IGST in GSTR-9 and GSTR-3B, and differences in the taxable value of invoices.The court determined that these issues could be verified by the department and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The court emphasized that further delay was not in the interest of revenue. The adjudicating authority is instructed to provide a personal hearing to the appellant's representative, review all relevant documents, and make a new decision on the merits concerning the specified discrepancies. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the findings related to the disputed serial numbers in the adjudication order.