2024 (11) TMI 1542 - HC - GST

Later assessment quashed; competing tax orders for same period cannot both stand, ITC demand for suppliers with cancelled GST upheld

HC quashed the later assessment order (Annexure P1) and allowed the petition, holding that two competing orders for the same tax period cannot stand. The ... Competing or conflicting orders pertaining to the same tax period - tax demand on the basis of differences in the output tax liability declared in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-9 - difference in tax on outward supplies as declared in Form GSTR-1 versus E-way bill - Excess ITC claimed on reverse charge basis in Form GSTR-3B for the F.Y. 2018-19 - Availment of ITC against the invoices wherein the GSTIN of the supplier was cancelled - HELD THAT:- There cannot be two competing or conflicting orders pertaining to the same tax period. We further find that while passing the second impugned order, the authority has chosen to drop three of the issues that had been originally flagged for the purposes of assessment. It has further confirmed a demand of tax in respect of ITC availed wherein the registration of the suppliers is stated to have been cancelled. On this aspect, even the first order had held against the petitioner. The confirmed demand with respect to ITC availed from suppliers whose GST registration came to be subsequently cancelled can always be assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal. However, insofar as the output tax liability question as well as the outward supplies as declared in Form GSTR-1 is concerned, the same would have to abide by the order bearing reference No. ZD070424062920H. The order which stands placed on record as Annexure P1 is quashed - petition allowed. The writ challenges two orders dated 27 April 2024 for tax period April 2018-March 2019, which 'deal with identical issues' and were issued by the same officer. The two orders produced conflicting results: one confirmed demands for discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 (Rs. 45,00,548), a GSTR-1 vs. e-way bill difference (Rs. 7,81,580), excess RCM ITC (Rs. 28,354), and ITC availed from suppliers whose GSTINs were cancelled (demand Rs. 5,74,281); the other dropped the first three issues but confirmed ITC-related demand (Rs. 5,03,548), creating double taxation on that head. The court held that 'there cannot be two competing or conflicting orders pertaining to the same tax period.' The confirmed ITC demand for supplies whose registration was subsequently cancelled can be challenged by appeal. The writ petition was allowed; order bearing reference No. ZD070424062889V is quashed, and the petitioner is permitted to pursue remedies in light of the liberty reserved in Paragraph 4. Order No. ZD070424062920H remains operative.