2024 (12) TMI 997 - HC - GST

Tax Dispute Resolution: Authority Must Verify Payments, Lift Bank Attachment, and Allow Objection Submission Within Four Weeks

Bharathi Printers, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. Munusamy Babu Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer – 1, Chennai, The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai

HC allowed petition challenging tax discrepancy order. Directed tax authority to verify petitioner's payment, lift bank account attachment, and provide ... Challenge to impugned order - mismatch in the input tax credit availed in GSTR- 3B and the actual credit reflected in GSTR-1 - cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- It is open to the respondents to verify the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mismatch liability amount of Rs.27,092/- has been remitted already, the respondents may verify the same - If the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the payment of aforesaid amount is incorrect, the respondents authority shall intimate the same to the petitioner, who shall deposit 25% of disputed tax within a period of two weeks from the date of such intimation. The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 16.10.2023 is hereby set aside - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to impugned order on tax discrepancies and cancellation of registration.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in a printing business, challenged the order passed by the first respondent due to a mismatch in input tax credit availed in GSTR-3B and actual credit reflected in GSTR-1. The discrepancy amounted to Rs. 27,092, with additional interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that despite paying the mismatch amount and filing an appeal within the stipulated period, the appeal was dismissed for delay. The petitioner's bank account was attached by the first respondent for the total due amount of Rs. 81,372.The petitioner argued that the show cause notices and impugned order were not served personally but uploaded on the GST Portal. They requested an opportunity to explain the discrepancies. The petitioner cited a recent judgment where a similar matter was remanded back to the authority subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The petitioner had already paid the mismatch liability amount and sought one final opportunity to present objections before the adjudicating authority.The High Court set aside the impugned order and issued the following directions: a) Verification of the payment made by the petitioner, b) Deposit of 25% of disputed tax if the payment was not made, c) Lifting of bank attachment upon verification or payment, d) Treating the impugned order as a show cause notice, e) Allowing the petitioner to submit objections within four weeks, and f) Revival of the impugned order if conditions are not met. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.