The GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) liability was confirmed on non-submission of the documents showing proof for movement of goods. The Madras High Court granted a second opportunity to contest the demand on 20% pre-deposit condition.
The assessee-petitioner, Ravi Chitra, received a show cause notice dated 06.06.2022, alleging wrongful availing of GST Input Tax Credit ( ITC ). Chitra responded on 06.04.2023, affirming the transaction’s authenticity and submitting original tax invoices, bank statements, ledger accounts, and pertinent returns from both supplier and petitioner. Following this, the contested order was issued on 30.08.2023.
Mr. B.Manoharan, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was unaware of the GST proceedings as because GST compliances were being taken care of by her tax consultant. It was further stated that such order came to the notice of the assessee only upon receipt of an order of attachment dated 18.03.2024 in relation to the bank account of the petitioner.
Considering the assessee’s response, the court noted the submission of original tax invoices, ledger accounts related to the supplier, bank statements, and relevant GSTR returns.
However, crucial documents such as e-way bills, lorry receipts, and weighment slips, necessary to establish actual movement of goods, were not provided.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy‘s bench reviewed the GST order, which highlighted that the GST liability was upheld primarily due to the absence of evidence regarding the physical movement of goods.
Based on the documents submitted, including bank statements reflecting payments to the supplier and GSTR 2A showing available Input Tax Credit (ITC), the court deemed it fair to grant the petitioner an opportunity to furnish additional evidence proving the actual movement of goods. However, as a condition for reconsideration, the assessee was required to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks of receiving the court’s order.
Thus, the high court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The assessee was allowed to submit additional documents within the specified timeframe to substantiate the movement of goods. Followingly, the bank account attachment was raised.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
