GST Returns Mismatch: Madras HC remands Demand Order on Grocery Shop Owner on Rs. 1.5L Pre-deposit Condition [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Madras High court remanded the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order issued on GST returns mismatch to a grocery shop owner on 1.5 lakhs pre-deposit.

The assessee- petitioner is a  small time assessee running a small grocery shop. The assessee has failed to file reply to the notices issued prior to the impugned order as they were posted in the GST common portal and therefore, the petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain the case.

The court noticed that the GST amount that has been confirmed against the petitioner towards GST liability, on account of the difference between GSTR 01 and GSTR 3B and also between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B.

The submission of the assessee was opposed by the respondent’s counsel, on the ground that the Writ Petition is time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.

It was also contended that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in and submitted that the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Justice C. Saravanan, considering the arguments, determined that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Consequently, the court granted partial relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case to the respondent for a fresh decision, provided the assessee deposits ₹1,50,000 into the GST department’s Electronic Cash Register.

The High Court instructed that the quashed GST order should be treated as an addendum to the previous show cause notice. The assessee was instructed to file a reply to this notice within 30 days of receiving the court's order and make the required deposit. The respondent is then expected to issue a fresh decision based on merit and in accordance with the law, within three months, ensuring the petitioner is heard before any final order is passed.

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