TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Order Challenged: Writ Petition Succeeds, Recovery Notice Quashed, Fresh Opportunity Granted for Reconsideration</h1> HC allowed the writ petition challenging tax order and recovery notice. The court set aside the original order, remanded the matter for reconsideration, ... Payment of interest for belated filing of returns - excess availment of ITC. Payment of interest for belated filing of returns - this issue was responded to by stating that the interest liability was discharged. The petitioner annexed evidence of discharge to the reply - HELD THAT:- A finding was recorded that the interest amount does not tally. On examining the petitioner's reply in comparison with the amounts indicated as payable towards interest, it appears that the amounts tally. Excess availment of ITC - the petitioner replied by asserting that excess ITC was not availed of, in support of such submission, the petitioner attached the GSTR 9 return and copies of invoices - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's reply has been completely disregarded and a finding recorded that the tax payer did not reply on this point. In these circumstances, the impugned order and recovery notice warrant interference. The impugned order in original dated 30.12.2023 and recovery notice dated 13.05.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues involved:Challenging an order and recovery notice regarding interest liability and Input Tax Credit (ITC) under CGST and SGST.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.12.2023 and the recovery notice dated 13.05.2024 based on a show cause notice received on 11.01.2023. The petitioner claimed to have discharged interest liability for the financial year 2017-2018 through GSTR 3B return and DRC-03, and stated that only eligible ITC was availed of, supported by annexed documents.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reply was disregarded in concluding the interest liability under CGST and SGST, as well as the mismatch between GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated 2A. The counsel highlighted that the order stated the petitioner did not respond to this point after the show cause notice.3. The Government Advocate contended that natural justice principles were followed in issuing the show cause notice on 23.03.2023 and indicated willingness for reconsideration if remanded.4. The show cause notice addressed two issues: interest for belated filing of returns and excess ITC availed of. The petitioner responded by asserting that interest liability was discharged and excess ITC was not availed of, supported by evidence in the form of GSTR 9 returns and invoices.5. The impugned order acknowledged the petitioner's response on interest payment but incorrectly found discrepancies. It disregarded the petitioner's reply on ITC claim, leading to interference with the order and recovery notice.6. Consequently, the High Court set aside the original order and recovery notice, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit additional documents, and the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a fresh order within three months. The bank attachment was lifted due to the original order being set aside.7. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as per the terms outlined in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
