GST Order shows Rs. 3L Excess over GSTR 3B and 2A Mismatch in SCN: Madras HC directs to Treat Order as SCN [Read Order]

The Madras High Court directed the impugned GST order to be treated as a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) as the order was not in align with the SCN. The order showed an excess of Rs. 3.01 lakhs over mismatch in GSTR 3B and 2A. The court found that the order issued without notice had travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

The Petitioner, Tvl. Anandh Store, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings on the ground that such an order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

S. Rajendran, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was called upon to show cause with regard to the shortfall in Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR 2A as compared to the petitioner's GSTR 3B return to the extent of Rs.6,33,699/-. He also pointed out that the confirmed tax proposal under the impugned order is to the extent of Rs.9,34,236/-, a discrepancy of Rs.3,00,537/-.

The petitioner further contended that the comparison between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B should not have been undertaken for the financial year 2017-2018 as the GSTR 2A form had not been prescribed during that period.

C. Harsha Raj, the counsel for the respondent, submitted that, in view of the disparity between the impugned order and the show cause notice, the impugned order may be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to reply accordingly.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “on comparing the impugned order and the show cause notice, the contention of learned counsel that the impugned order travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice is liable to be accepted. In those circumstances, as submitted by the counsel for respondent, the impugned order may be treated as a show cause notice.”

The court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner was granted three weeks to submit a reply. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioner's reply. Consequently, the bank attachment was raised.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates