9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he supplier's return in Form GSTR 1 - HELD THAT:- Although the receipt of the reply dated 13.09.2023 is not admitted by the respondent, on perusal thereof, it appears that the petitioner explained the disparity between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the GSTR 1 return of his supplier by stating that such disparity arose on account of an error by the supplier in reporting b2c turnover. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran For Respondent : Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (Taxes) ORDER An assessment order dated 15.12.2023 is assailed largely on the ground that the petitioner's reply dated 13.09.2023 was taken into consideration. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in oil products and a registered person under applicable GST enactments. The petitioner received a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 in May 2023 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectified by the petitioner. Moreover, learned counsel submits that circular No.183 was in operation during the relevant assessment period and that the said circular sets out the procedure to be followed in cases pertaining to disparity between the returns. He also submits that the assessing officer should have initiated proceedings against the supplier in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 42 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lminated in the impugned assessment order. 6. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed demand as a condition for remand. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to place the relevant documents on record and contest the tax demand. Solely f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
