The Madras High Court addressed a case involving discrepancies between the E-way bill portal and the GSTR 1 returns, which had not been properly considered by the GST department. The Court ordered a reconsideration of the matter without requiring a pre-deposit and lifted the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account.
The original order was challenged by the assessee-petitioner, Silk Junction on the grounds that the assessee’s reply had not been duly considered. Initially, an ASMT 10 notice was issued on March 15, 2023, after the petitioner failed to respond to a show cause notice, concerning mismatches between GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, as well as turnover discrepancies between GSTR 1 and the e-way bill portal.
The assessee’s reply, indicated that the ITC available as per GSTR 2A was higher than what was claimed in GSTR 3B, and turnover mismatches had been addressed with a payment of Rs. 5,82,887/-.
The counsel for the assessee made note of the inconsistencies in the impugned GST order, the e-way bill mismatch was erroneously recorded as unanswered, despite the taxes having been paid.
Additionally, the counsel also noted that contradictory findings on ITC mismatch and unaddressed issues not mentioned in the show cause notice. Following the impugned order, Rs. 3,11,280/- was recovered from the petitioner’s bank account.
The GST department’s representative submitted that, despite adherence to principles of natural justice, the matter should be remanded for reconsideration, especially considering the recovery of Rs. 3,11,280/-.
The High Court bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy found that the key assertions regarding ITC and turnover mismatches were overlooked.
Similarly, with regard to the turnover mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 1 return and the e-way bill portal, the assessee’s reply to the effect that the GST liability was discharged was not taken into consideration, noted the court.
The impugned GST order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Mr. P. Rajkumar and Mr. C. Harsha Raj, AGP (T) appeared for the assessee and respondents respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
