9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 2A returns - short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover as declared in Form GSTR 3B - non reversal of ITC on account of rejection of goods received as inputs - HELD THAT:- The impugned order warrants interference albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. By taking note of the heads of tax demand in the impugned order and the submissions made in respect thereof, it is found that a liability of Rs. 64,34,49,053/- was imposed merely on the finding that the petitioner was lethargic in rectifying the error committed while filing the GSTR 3B returns. If this amount is excluded and some allowance is made for the ITC reversal against the head relating to excess availment of ITC, the remittance of a sum of Rs. 5 crore as a condition for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover. He pointed out that the matter pertains to the initial year of GST implementation. Therefore, the petitioner had inadvertently disclosed the same turnover thrice while reporting in the GSTR 3B return. This was rectified by filing the GSTR 9 annual return. In spite of pointing this out to the assessing officer, he submits that the assessing officer held against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner was lethargic in maintaining its accounts. 3. The next issue dealt with by learned senior counsel relates to the non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of rejection. On this issue, he pointed out that goods received by the petitioner were defective. Therefore, said g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lish that the turnover reflected in the GSTR 3B return was not correct. He also submits that the petitioner should have taken steps to rectify the return and not waited until the GSTR 9 return was filed after the end of the relevant assessment period. With regard to the methodology followed by the petitioner while returning defective goods, he contended that the course of action prescribed by statute is for the supplier to issue credit notes and for the recipient of goods to reverse ITC to that extent. For all these reasons, he submits that the impugned order does not warrant interference. 7. With regard to the fourth objection pertaining to short payment of GST on unreconciled sales turnover as declared in Form GSTR 3B, the assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the petitioner also submitted that the statute does not enable rectification until the annual return is filed. 9. As regards the seventh objection relating to non reversal of ITC on account of rejection of goods received as inputs, the position taken by the petitioner is that the transaction was revenue neutral and did not cause any revenue loss. The petitioner also relied on Circular No.72 to contend that it is permissible for the petitioner, at its option, to return goods by treating the same as a supply and paying taxes thereon. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority rejected this contention by analysis of the meaning of the expression exchange in Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 10. As rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
