The Madras High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration due to a mismatch between the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) in GSTR-3B and the auto-populated GSTR-2A.
An order in original dated 15.12.2023 was assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the petitioner had entrusted GST compliances to an auditor and that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order, the present writ petition was filed.
Mr.U.Sriram representing the petitioner submitted that the tax proposal pertains to a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. He further submits that if provided an opportunity, the petitioner would be in a position to establish that only eligible Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) was claimed. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, representing the Government Advocate, accepted notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, she points out that such order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 26.09.2023 and two reminders in respect of personal hearing.
On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or participate in the personal hearing pursuant to the two reminders issued by the respondent. Since the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.
The coram of Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthi observed that the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
The writ petition was disposed of, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
