9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory and taxpayer has not attached sufficient documents in support of his reply which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details - the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Petition disposed off by way of remand. - HON BLE MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and E-way bill information; reconciliation of GSTR-01 with GSTR 3-B; excess claim of Input Tax Credit [ ITC ]; the excess input tax credit ( ITC ) claimed on account of non-reconciliation of information declared in GSTR-3B and Excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B compared to the tax on inward supplies declared by suppliers. To the said Show Cause Notice, a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner giving response under each of the heads with supporting documents. 5. The impugned order, however, after recording the narration records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is not satisfactory as the taxpayer has not attached sufficient documents in support of his reply. It states that And whereas, it is noticed that the Taxpayer filed reply/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory and taxpayer has not attached sufficient documents in support of his reply which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. 7. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
