Tax Liability Quashed for 2017-18 Over GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Discrepancy; Reassessment Ordered in Two Months.

The HC quashed the assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2017-18 due to a turnover discrepancy between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The petitioner, who claimed lack of notice awareness, was granted a two-week period to submit responses. The matter was remanded for reassessment, with instructions for the assessing officer to complete the process within two months. The case was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty for financial year 2017-18 due to discrepancy in turnover between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Summary:
The petitioner contested an assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2017-18, citing lack of awareness about notices and non-participation in proceedings. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and supplying bags, relied on a GST practitioner who allegedly did not inform the petitioner about the notices. The consultant affirmed in an affidavit that the notices were not visible on the communication window. The petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the claim, emphasizing the discrepancy in turnover between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

The Government Advocate representing the respondent argued that all notices were available on the GST Department portal, and the petitioner's failure to respond did not warrant interference with the order. It was highlighted that a statutory appeal was an option for the petitioner, which was not utilized. The impugned order indicated that the petitioner did not respond to the intimation and show cause notice, nor attended the personal hearing. Despite explanations provided, the petitioner did not have the chance to address the tax department's claim regarding the turnover discrepancy between the returns.

The Court acknowledged the shortcomings in the explanations provided but recognized the petitioner's right to respond and participate in the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner was granted a two-week period to make submissions before the assessing officer, who was directed to complete the reassessment within two months of receiving the order. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred.

---