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>GST Annual Return Dispute: Petitioner Directed to Address Tax Credit Discrepancies and Respond to Show-Cause Notice</h1> OC ruled on a GST annual return dispute involving discrepancies in tax credits. The HC directed the petitioner to respond comprehensively to the ... Discrepancy between his client’s account and goods and services tax (GST) annual return - HELD THAT:- It appears from impugned show-cause notice that in respect of a sum of ₹ 8,02,84,232/- there is an issue between petitioner-assessee and revenue. Petitioner says it is a discrepancy while revenue says petitioner wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC). Impugned show- cause notice bears record of explanation sought for by the jurisdictional officer, furnished and satisfaction recorded. All the above in respect of said sum of ₹ 8,02,84,232/-. In view of last preceding paragraph petitioner will reply to impugned show-cause notice. In it, petitioner will be at liberty to take all points, including the point of limitation. The authority says and will pass order by 5th February, 2025. On communication of the order to petitioner, it will obtain advise on next course of action. Petition disposed off. The Orissa High Court, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arindam Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sahoo presiding, addressed a petition concerning a discrepancy in the GST annual return for the tax period of July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner, represented by Mr. V. Sridharan, identified a discrepancy between his client's account and the GST return, which was also noted in an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The jurisdictional officer sought an explanation, which was provided to the officer's satisfaction, but the audit case remained open.The authority issued a show-cause notice on August 5, 2024, invoking the extended period of limitation. The petitioner argued for the writ petition to remain pending for adjudication with interim protection until the order is made by February 5, 2025.Mr. Satyanarayan Pattanayak and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, representing the Union of India and the revenue, respectively, contended that the discrepancies were not satisfactorily explained, and the show-cause notice provided an opportunity for further explanation.The court noted the issue concerning a sum of Rs. 8,02,84,232/-, where the petitioner claimed a discrepancy, while the revenue alleged wrongful availing of input tax credit (ITC). The petitioner was instructed to reply to the show-cause notice, addressing all points, including the limitation issue. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, allowing the petitioner to seek further advice upon receiving the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
