9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner did not appear before the respondent authority, it was presumed that the petitioner failed to provide the supporting documents in connection with the reply though the same were annexed with the reply as is evident on perusal of the reply placed on record at page 47 in the Special Civil Application No.4160 of 2024. The matters are remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass de-novo fresh order taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. Petition disposed off by way of remand. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA And HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) FOR THE PETITIONER(S) NO. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 5 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1,2,3,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Special Civil Application No.4170 of 2024. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders in original are not sustainable as the Adjudicating Authority has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner pointing out that the difference is not subject to taxation as reported turnover pertains to Maharashtra and Delhi and GST has been duly paid on such turnover in accordance with the applicable provisions. Learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth for the petitioner further submitted that inconsistency in Forms GSTR 9 and 9C was due to inadvertent error in submission of such Forms and in the GST Audit, the nationwide turnover was incorrectly reported instead of the actual Gujarat-specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority for upholding the difference in Forms GSTR 9 and 9C without considering the reply filed by the petitioner as under :- 12.9 Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the taxpayer, I observe that while the taxpayer has explained the variance in turnover, no documentary evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim that the reported turnover pertains to Maharashtra and Delhi and has been appropriately taxed. However, it is crucial to emphasize that such errors, especially when leading to substantial financial discrepancies, demand a higher degree of diligence in the filing process. I therefore find that even though the taxpayer has themselves acknowledged the inadvertent error while filing the GSTR-9C whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
