2024 (5) TMI 305 - HC - GST

Legal Challenge Upheld: Tax Assessment Order Overturned with Conditional Opportunity to Present New Evidence and Partial Payment

HC allowed the challenge to the assessment order, setting aside the original order. The court directed a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to address ... Validity of assessment order - order challenged on the ground that documents submitted by the petitioner were not duly considered and that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The entire tax liability is on account of the disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated of GSTR 2A return. In accordance with Circular No.183, the petitioner obtained a certificate from the supplier albeit belatedly. The reply of the petitioner indicates that documents in support of the contention that the purchases were genuine were submitted. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to effectively deal with the tax demand after putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand - Petition allowed. Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order based on non-consideration of documents and lack of reasonable opportunity.Summary:The petitioner, a dealer in polyester yarn, filed returns for the assessment period 2017-2018. Discrepancies between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A returns led to a show cause notice. The petitioner responded with various documents. The assessment order was issued on 30.12.2023.The petitioner argued that the respondent did not follow Circular No.183/15/2022-GST and misinterpreted invoice copies. The respondent, represented by Mrs. Vasanthamala, stated that a supplier's certificate issued post-order could have helped in adjudication.Acknowledging the supplier's certificate's explanatory value, the petitioner offered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 towards the disputed tax demand for a possible remand. The tax liability arose from the disparity in returns, despite the petitioner's submission of supporting documents.The Court set aside the order on the condition of the petitioner's payment and directed the respondent to provide a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to address the tax demand within two months of receiving the payment. The case was closed without costs.