TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Liability Dispute Resolved: HC Overturns Assessment Order Due to Substantial Discrepancies in GSTR 3B Return</h1> <h3>M/s. Kamatchi Stores Versus The State Tax Officer, Chennai</h3> HC allowed the tax liability challenge due to factual discrepancies in assessment orders. The court found a significant variance between the petitioner's ... Order challenged on the ground that tax liability was imposed on a factually erroneous basis in assessment orders for assessment periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the GSTR 3B return. Such return specifies a sum of Rs. 77,69,979/- in the column pertaining to cess in table 4. The impugned order, on the contrary, specifies that Rs. 1,89,09,103/- was reported as inward cess in the GSTR 3B return. On such basis, the respondent arrived at the conclusion that there was short payment of cess on outward supplies to the extent of Rs. 31,05,088/-. Since the conclusion appears prima facie to be based on an erroneous factual assumption, the matter requires reconsideration. The impugned orders dated 28.02.2024 are set aside and the matters are remanded for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:Challenge to tax liability based on factual errors in assessment orders for assessment periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the orders dated 28.02.2024, asserting that tax liability was imposed on a factually erroneous basis. The petitioner had replied to show cause notices dated 28.07.2023 on 23.08.2023 and 30.01.2024, stating that a sum of Rs. 1,58,60,612/- was paid towards cess from the electronic credit ledger. The impugned orders were issued subsequently. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order erroneously mentioned an inward cess amount of Rs. 1,89,09,103/-, whereas the actual amount as per the GSTR 3B return was Rs. 77,69,979/-. Therefore, the counsel contended that the matter necessitated reconsideration.The Government Advocate representing the respondent conceded that the anomaly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel might warrant reconsideration. The petitioner had submitted the GSTR 3B return, which clearly indicated a cess amount of Rs. 77,69,979/- in table 4. In contrast, the impugned order stated an inward cess of Rs. 1,89,09,103/-, leading to the conclusion of short payment of cess on outward supplies. As this conclusion seemed to be based on an erroneous factual assumption, the Court deemed it necessary to remand the matters for reconsideration.Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 28.02.2024 and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to issue fresh orders within three months from the date of receipt of the Court's order, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of without any costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the Court's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
