9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04/07/2024 rejecting the application of rectification of the order dated 25/04/2024 on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the said order and the said order was a reasoned and speaking in itself and was passed following the due process of natural justice. 4. This is a classic case of negligence and dereliction of duty on part of respondent no. 4 which we will demonstrate in our order. 5. The brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Viscose Filament Yarn and allied chemicals. After manufacture of the Viscose Filament Yarn, the petitioner transferred the same to various depots/godowns/warehouses in different states upon payment of GST under the tax invoices for onward sales to distributors and sellers. The factory of the petitioner situated at Maharashtra is registered under the GSTIN No. 27AAACG4464B1ZY and various godowns of the petitioner are located at multiple locations in the State of Gujarat including Surat. The godown situated at Surat received the goods from the factory at Maharashtra and other warehouses/ godowns across the India. The w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Table 9 of the returns filed for the month of April 2019, June, 2019, July 2019 and August 2019 in Form-GSTR-1 in Maharashtra and Delhi. 5.6. It is also the case of the petitioner that apart from mentioning of wrong GSTIN number in Form-GSTR-1 which was later on corrected in respect of three invoices out of 1548 invoices which were rectified, one invoice dated 28/02/2019 was inadvertently not rectified and in two invoices, there were some inadvertent errors in rectification which were issued from the factory at Maharashtra. 5.7. It appears that the rectification made by the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 37 (3) of the GST Act, the same is reflected in Form-GSTR-2A of the new GSTIN Number for the Financial Year 2019-2020 under the head "B2B amendment". 5.8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the rectification was reflected in GSTR-2A for the new GSTIN No. 23AAACG4464B7ZY for the year under consideration in the auto-populated figure in the Table 8A of GSTR-9 of the petitioner. 5.9. A notice dated 01/08/2023 was issued by the Superintendent of Central GST regarding purported Excess ITC availed and ITC availed without remittance of tax by the supplier proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/mistakes stated therein. Respondent no. 4, however, without considering the contents of the application and without affording any opportunity of hearing, passed a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 04/07/2024 disposing of the rectification applications filed by the petitioner observing that, there are no sufficient reasons/grounds for re-consideration of OIO No. Surat/GST/CLS/03/2024-2025 dated 25/04/2024 for rectification purpose under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 as no error apparent on the face of record in the said order is seen and the order is reasoned and speaking in itself and has been passed by following due principles of natural justice. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Josh appearing with Mr. Dhaval Shah and learned advocate Mr. Mihir Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 4 shows preconceived mindset and in fragrant breach of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the reply dated 25/08/2023 filed by the petitioner followed by the reply and response to the show cause notice in Form-DRC-01 has given a complete rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that considering the impact of the rectification done in returns filed in Form-GSTR-1, there is no excess availment of the ITC by the petitioner except the minor difference on account of the three invoices. 9. It was submitted that the submissions of the petitioner was reproduced in the impugned order and thereafter respondent no. 4 has an audacity to observe that "the petitioner has failed to produce any such documents to the adjudicating authority during the course of personal hearing as well as through written submission". It was submitted that inspite of placing entire record and the rectification and reconciliation by the petitioner, respondent no. 4 without application of mind has passed the impugned order and quashed and set aside the rectification application in one line stating the no error apparent on record is seen. It was therefore submitted that the impugned orders are passed with total non-application of mind by respondent no. 4. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 4 in support his submissions which clearly states that on further examination of the petitioner, a report is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervation regarding alleged irregular availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 20,62,94,593/-, on the ground that the corresponding tax was not paid by the suppliers, the Petitioner submitted reconciliation statements showing that the ITC reflected in the updated GSTR-2A was affected due to amendments made by the suppliers in their subsequent returns. The Petitioner also explained the difference of Rs. 3,76,539/- for the Financial Year 2020-21. The said claim has been verified by the concerned officers, who have submitted a compliance report in response to the objections raised by the officers of DG Audit (Central), IAAD, Ahmedabad, confirming that the differences were due to amendments made by the suppliers in their GSTR-1 returns after initial filing, which caused apparent mismatches but it did not indicate actual non-payment of tax. 11. That, the matter has now been taken up with the Director, Office of the Director General of Audit (Central), Indian Audit & Accounts Department, Ahmedabad, for resolution and closure of the aforesaid audit observations raised by the officers of DG Audit (Central), IAAD, Ahmedabad. 12. That, upon examination of the audit observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as there was a difference in Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was suppose to give the details of the invoices on which ITC was availed. However, in the facts of the case, it was submitted that the petitioner has failed to provide such details, and therefore, respondent no. 4 was justified in confirming the demand on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly availed the ITC of IGST as per the show cause notice. It was submitted that after the rectification, the petitioner has submitted the details along with the rectification application which has not been considered by the respondents as there was no error apparent on face of record of the impugned order. 15. It was submitted that thereafter the respondent examined the case of the petitioner for the purpose of submitting compliance report in connection with "Draft Report on Subject Specific Compliance Audit on the Department's Oversight on GST Payment and Returns Filing (DoRF Phase-II) for the years 2018-2019 to 2020-2021," proposed for inclusion in the Compliance Audit Report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (Goods & Services Tax) for the year ended March, 2023. It was found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary to the facts and material available on record by making false allegations against the petitioner for not supplying the documents etc. and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it appears that though in the case of the petitioner, there was a movement of the goods from the factory to the godowns and there was no actual sale of the goods as per the scheme of the GST Act, the tax is now levied on the supply of the goods i.e. movement of the goods from one place to another and accordingly the petitioner was required to obtain the GST number for its factory and different godowns situated at different locations in the country. Accordingly the petitioner obtained the GSTIN numbers in the State of Gujarat and from September, 2018 had obtained the GSTIN number for the warehouse situated at Surat. It appears that by mistake the petitioner referred to the GSTIN number which was obtained for the State of Gujarat was wrongly stated for the supplies received at warehouse/godown situated at Surat by mentioning earlier GSTIN No. 24AAACG4464B5Z0 instead of GSTIN No. 24AAACG4464B7ZY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding alleged procedural lapses and erroneous interpretation of the provisions relating to Input Tax Credit. 6. The department has carefully examined the taxpayer's submissions, reconciliation statements and audit findings. The verification reports furnished by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and Range Superintendent confirm that the alleged mismatches in Input Tax Credit arose due to data processing discrepancies rather than any actual non-compliance or evasion of taxes. As the audit issues stand duly addressed and clarified, it is requested that the aforementioned audit observations (OBS No. 1021071 and OBS NO. 1021444 may now be treated as settled and closed." 24. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the same is contradictory or it appears that the respondents without careful examination of the submissions of the tax payer, reconciliation statement and audit findings have passed impugned order-in-original and cursorily rejected the rectification applications filed by the petitioner resulting into the raising of the huge demand on the petitioner for no fault on part of the petitioner. 25. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that impugned order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
