2023 (2) TMI 1129 - HC - GST

GST Compliance Win: Authorities Misinterpreted Form GSTR-9, Ordered to Adjust Tax Assessment and Release Security

Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Anne Sandeep, Project Director Versus Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others

HC allowed petitioner's writ challenging GST Act orders. Court found authorities misread GSTR-9 form and incorrectly interpreted turnover discrepancies. ... Seeking adjustment of GST amount deposited by the petitioner in the financial year 2018- 19, which inadvertently could not be deposited in the financial year 2017-18, but deposited by the petitioner in the month of June 2018 i.e. financial year 2018-19 - circular dated 31.12.2018 as well as provisions of Section 39(9) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, could not dispute that the GSTR-9 dated 30.1.2020 is the only GSTR-9 form submitted by the petitioner and also could not dispute the figures provided therein. Both the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have committed the said misreading of GSTR-9, hence both the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside - the respondents are directed to adjust the amount of GST deposited by the petitioner. Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to GST Act orders, Adjustment of GST amount, Misreading of GSTR-9Analysis:The petitioner challenged orders passed under Section 61 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, along with the dismissal of their appeal. They sought a mandamus to adjust the GST amount deposited in the financial year 2018-19, which was meant for 2017-19, based on a circular and Section 39(9) of the GST Act. The petitioner received a notice under Section 61, alleging discrepancies in turnover between their GSTR-9 and bank statement. The petitioner argued that the turnover discrepancy was due to supplies to unregistered persons only. The court noted that the authorities failed to consider the complete GSTR-9, which showed a total turnover of Rs. 20,37,13,502.00 lakhs for the financial year 2017-18. The Standing Counsel did not dispute the figures in the GSTR-9 submitted by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that both assessing and appellate authorities misread the form.The court held that the impugned orders were based on a misreading of the GSTR-9 and set them aside. The respondents were directed to adjust the GST amount deposited by the petitioner as requested. Additionally, the security amount deposited under the interim order was to be released in favor of the petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner and rectifying the errors made by the authorities in interpreting the GSTR-9 form.