In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court remanded the matter of GSTR 3B & GSTR 1 Mismatch arised due to GST (Goods and Services Tax) calculation at 36% for certain items for reconsideration as the department has recovered the amount of Rs.68,677/- from the petitioner by way of debit from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger.
The petitioner, Jinvar Trading, claimed ignorance regarding the proceedings leading to the impugned order. It was contended that the petitioner’s part-time accountant failed to verify the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, where the relevant notices and orders were uploaded.
The counsel of the petitioner highlighted that the GST proposal in question related to a disparity between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B return and the GSTR 1 statement. Furthermore, it was pointed out that a substantial amount had already been recovered from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger, representing a significant portion of the disputed tax liability. As such, the petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits.
Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, representing the respondent, argued that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the petitioner through the issuance of a notice in Form ASMT 10 and a show cause notice.
Considering the GST order and the submissions, the bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy acknowledged the disparity between the GSTR 3B return and the GSTR 1 statement. It was evident that the tax proposal had been confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show cause notice or participate in the personal hearing. Given these circumstances, the court deemed it necessary to provide the petitioner with an opportunity, especially considering the substantial recovery already made.
The impugned order dated 30th October 2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration by the respondent. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 21st September 2023.
Upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and subsequently issue a fresh order within three months. It was clarified that the amount debited from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger towards tax liability under the impugned order would be subject to the outcome of the remanded proceedings.
The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly. Ms.C.Rekhakumari appeared for the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
