Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Petitioner challenged order u/s 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 due to mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A regarding input tax credit. Court held that respondent failed to consider changes in CGST Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 36(4). Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B attributable to mismatch for supplies by RAMCO, constituting 10.53% of total credit, less than 20% as per amended Rule 36(4) till 09.10.2019. Impugned order set aside, case remitted to respondent to pass fresh orders considering amended provisions under Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending remand orders. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Petitioner challenged order u/s 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 due to mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A regarding input tax credit. Court held that respondent failed to consider changes in CGST Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 36(4). Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B attributable to mismatch for supplies by RAMCO, constituting 10.53% of total credit, less than 20% as per amended Rule 36(4) till 09.10.2019. Impugned order set aside, case remitted to respondent to pass fresh orders considering amended provisions under Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending remand orders. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
