Court grants time for State to file counter affidavit & petitioner's counsel to respond. Parties directed to provide orders & written notes. -07

The court granted time for the State to file a counter affidavit and allowed the petitioner's counsel two weeks to respond. The respondents were directed to provide the orders passed in the proceedings, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing after five weeks. Both parties were instructed to submit written notes, relevant provisions of law, and decisions they intended to rely on before the next hearing date. The petitioner challenged the summary order under GST DRC-07, citing discrepancies in availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and procedural violations of the JGST Act, 2017.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged discrepancy in availed ITC for the financial year 2018-19.
2. Issuance of summary order under GST DRC-07 without following provisions of the JGST Act, 2017.
3. Blocking and unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
4. Challenge to the order based on provisions of the JGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised concerns regarding a summary order issued under GST DRC-07 to recover &8377; 14,36,896 for alleged discrepancies in availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to &8377; 6.17 Lakhs for the financial year 2018-19. Initially, the petitioner indicated a discrepancy of only &8377; 44,303 in response to a notice dated 18th October 2019. However, a subsequent show-cause notice in DRC-01 was issued after a year, alleging excess ITC availment and proposing interest and penalty. The petitioner highlighted differences in GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B, ASMT-10, and notice under Section 73 of the Act, but the summary order was issued without considering the petitioner's responses.

2. The petitioner contended that the issuance of the summary order under GST DRC-07 did not adhere to the provisions of the JGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel relied on various provisions of the Act to challenge the order. The court granted time to the State to file a counter affidavit and allowed the petitioner's counsel two weeks to respond if necessary. The respondents were directed to bring on record the orders passed in the proceedings, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing after five weeks. Both parties were instructed to submit written notes, relevant provisions of law, and decisions they intended to rely on before the next hearing date.

3. The petitioner also raised the issue of blocking and unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) totaling &8377; 12,30,238, out of which &8377; 10,18,942 was later unblocked, leaving &8377; 4,21,698 still blocked. This aspect was presented as part of the challenge to the order, emphasizing the impact of the blocked ITC on the overall dispute.

4. In the challenge against the summary order and alleged discrepancies in availed ITC, the petitioner's counsel referenced specific provisions of the JGST Act, 2017 to support their arguments. By seeking to substantiate the challenge based on the legal framework provided by the Act, the petitioner aimed to establish the procedural and substantive grounds for contesting the order issued under GST DRC-07.

---