2023 (8) TMI 395 - HC - GST

GST exempt turnover mismatch in GSTR-3B vs GSTR-1 and ignored reply/documents; assessment quashed and remanded for fresh decision.

The dominant issue was whether the assessment order was vitiated for breach of natural justice due to non-consideration of the taxpayer's reply and ... Violation of principles of natural justice - respondents had not dealt with the reply of petitioner and also has not referred the document which the petitioner has filed along with the reply - difference of Rs. 50 lakhs in exempted turn over reported as per GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 - validity of assessment order - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not considered the reply of the petitioner along with the evidence. Further, if the respondents need any further clarification ought to have directed the petitioner to clarify and submit further evidence for sales under Agriculture. Without doing so, the respondents have mechanically passed an order. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to redo the same, within a period of 4 weeks - Petition allowed. Issues Involved: The writ petition filed for Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Assessment order dated 27.12.2022.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Assessment DiscrepanciesThe petitioner, a proprietrix of Chellam Mobiles registered under GST, reported a difference in taxable turnover for the Assessment year 2020-2021. The 2nd respondent issued intimation regarding discrepancies in exempted turnover and demanded interest for belated filing of returns. Despite the petitioner's submissions and explanations, the impugned order was passed without due consideration of evidence and documents provided.Decision: The Court found that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's detailed submissions and evidence. The impugned order was set aside and quashed, directing the respondents to redo the assessment within 4 weeks. The petitioner was instructed to provide further evidence, specifically regarding the exemption under Agriculture, and cooperate without seeking adjournments.Key Points:- The petitioner's detailed records were not adequately considered by the respondents.- Lack of proper examination of evidence led to the quashing of the impugned order.- The petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit additional evidence for assessment purposes.- Cooperation without seeking adjournments was emphasized for the reassessment process.This judgment highlights the importance of thorough examination of evidence and proper consideration of submissions in assessment proceedings to ensure a fair and just outcome.