Tax Assessment Order Nullified: Authorities Must Provide Detailed Reasoning on Input Tax Credit and E-Way Bill Discrepancies

HC set aside a non-speaking tax assessment order for 2019-2020, directing respondent to pass a reasoned order addressing petitioner's objections regarding Input Tax Credit discrepancies and E-Way bill inconsistencies. The court mandated a fresh assessment with a personal hearing within twelve weeks, emphasizing the need for transparent and substantive administrative orders.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging an impugned order for the assessment year 2019-2020; Non-speaking order passed by the respondent despite specific directions from the court; Defects in the impugned order related to Input Tax Credit (ITC) mismatch, discrepancy between GSTR-1 and E-Way bill outward supplies, and suppression in respect of inward supplies; Failure of the respondent to address the objections raised by the petitioner; Request for setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to pass a speaking order.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 21.05.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020. Previously, the court had directed the respondent to reconsider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a speaking order. However, the respondent proceeded to pass a non-speaking order without discussing the objections raised by the petitioner, leading to the present challenge.

Regarding the defects in the impugned order, the petitioner explained discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) between GSTR-3B & GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B & GSTR-5. The petitioner also highlighted the discrepancy between GSTR-1 and E-Way bill outward supplies, emphasizing that e-way bills are not mandatory for supplies below a certain threshold. The petitioner's objections regarding suppression in inward supplies due to mismatch with e-way bills were also not adequately addressed by the respondent in the impugned order.

The court noted that the impugned order failed to address the objections raised by the petitioner, rendering it a non-speaking order. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the objections and granting a personal hearing to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of the order.

Ultimately, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of passing a speaking order and addressing the submissions made by the parties involved in tax assessment disputes.

---