9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the outward supply value reflected in the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. By reply dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner stated that such disparity is on account of the non-taxable supplies reflected in the e-way bills portal. It also appears that supporting documents were not annexed to the reply dated 27.02.2024 - In the show cause notice, the respondent did not refer to the returns filed by the petitioner in Form ITC -04, whereas, such returns were the basis for confirming the tax proposal to the extent specified therein. Since the petitioner was put on notice with regard to larger issue of mismatch, the petitioner could have provided a comprehensive explanation. Therefore, it is necessary to put the petitioner on terms. The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner in Form GSTR 3B. By reply dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner explained that e-way bills were raised under several categories, including categories where there was no taxable supply. Consequently, the petitioner stated that there would be a mismatch between the data reflected in the e-way bill portal and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. 4. Learned counsel refers to the subsequent letters dated 15.04.2024 16.04.2024 and points out that all relevant outward and inward delivery challans and outward and inward e-way bill reports were annexed to the reply dated 16.04.2024. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to show cause in respect of the returns filed in F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pporting documents were, however, annexed to the reply dated 16.04.2024, which is subsequent to the order. In the show cause notice, the respondent did not refer to the returns filed by the petitioner in Form ITC -04, whereas, such returns were the basis for confirming the tax proposal to the extent specified therein. Since the petitioner was put on notice with regard to larger issue of mismatch, the petitioner could have provided a comprehensive explanation. Therefore, it is necessary to put the petitioner on terms. 7. For reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- (Rupees Three crore and Fifty lakhs only) towards the disputed tax demand within six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
