Non-Consideration of Credit Note and Supporting Documents: Karnataka HC Sets Aside GST Order and Directs Fresh Consideration [Read Order]
The petitioner had specifically addressed the issue of inward supply as per GSTR-2A and supported the reply with relevant documentation, including a credit note
![Non-Consideration of Credit Note and Supporting Documents: Karnataka HC Sets Aside GST Order and Directs Fresh Consideration [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/23/2053173-gst-order-directs-fresh-consideration-documents-taxscan.webp "Non-Consideration of Credit Note and Supporting Documents: Karnataka HC Sets Aside GST Order and Directs Fresh Consideration [Read Order]")
The High Court of Karnataka,set aside the impugned GST ( Goods and Services Tax) order after finding that the petitioner’s credit note and supporting documents, submitted in response to a show cause notice, were not duly considered by the authority. Sait Nagjee Purushotham, petitioner-assessee, filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,...
The High Court of Karnataka,set aside the impugned GST ( Goods and Services Tax) order after finding that the petitioner’s credit note and supporting documents, submitted in response to a show cause notice, were not duly considered by the authority.
Sait Nagjee Purushotham, petitioner-assessee, filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the impugned order issued by Respondent No. 1 on 26.12.2024.
The Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.
The petitioner’s counsel referred to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2024 (Annexures-H1 and H2) and submitted that a detailed reply was filed on 24.12.2024 (Annexure-J), specifically addressing the observations made in the notice, including Observation No. 2 related to inward supply as per GSTR-2A.
It was pointed out that the petitioner had submitted a credit note and other supporting documents to substantiate the reply. However, Respondent No. 1, while issuing the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure-A1), failed to consider these submissions.
In support of this contention, the petitioner’s counsel relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Oasys Cybernetics Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer, where the Court set aside the impugned assessment order on the ground that the credit notes and other relevant documents were not properly considered.
The Court in that case held that when there is no revenue loss and the discrepancy is due to reporting errors, the explanation of the petitioner ought to be examined in the right perspective before confirming any tax demand.
Accordingly, the bench set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 and remitted the matter to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly,the petition was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
