9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory and relevant/supporting documents not furnished which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. As per the petitioner reference of an audit observation in the impugned order is also erroneous for the reason that there was no audit conducted of the petitioner in terms of Section 65 of Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 and the reference of an audit observations appears to be cryptic on account of an audit which was conducted on the GST Department itself. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an additional reply dated 24.04.2024, however, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order. 6. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2024 shows that the Department has issued the said notice on the audit observation. The said observation states there was a mismatch of Rs. 292394259 when ITC availed in GSTR 3B and GSTR9 Table 8C compared with the ITC available in GSTR 2A returns. **** To examine the correctness of ITC availed after considering subsequent year s adjustment Table 8D of GSTR9 was considered. The negative figures in GSTR9 Table 8D indicates that there is a risk of ITC being availed more than was available. On checking said table audit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.04.2024 filed by the Petitioner are detailed replies 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 relevant/supporting documents not furnished which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. 9. As per the petitioner reference of an audit observation in the impugned order is also erroneous for the reason that there was no audit conducted of the petitioner in terms of Section 65 of Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 and the reference of an audit observations appears to be cryptic on account of an audit which was conducted on the GST Department itself. 10. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
