9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D THAT:- Since the finding was recorded by conflating a reply in respect of the credit notes with the RCM issue, the order calls for interference. Even otherwise, the petitioner has also placed on record a subsequent communication from the supplier to the effect that the error committed while making entries in the said supplier's GSTR 1 was subsequently rectified. In these facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the GSTR 1 statement. The second notice pertains to discrepancies arising out of alleged RCM supplies. The petitioner replied to the notice pertaining to the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return and GSTR 1 statement on 07.10.2023. In the said reply, the petitioner explained that the discrepancy is on account of not taking into consideration credit notes for a total sum of Rs.1,94,948/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. She submits that the petitioner did not reply with regard to the RCM issue. She also points out that the letter from the petitioner's supplier is subsequent to the impugned order. 5. The petitioner's reply dated 07.10.2023 indicates clearly that it pertains to the mismatch between the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the RCM issue, the order calls for interference. Even otherwise, the petitioner has also placed on record a subsequent communication from the supplier to the effect that the error committed while making entries in the said supplier's GSTR 1 was subsequently rectified. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
