https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405472 The High Court allowed the petition challenging an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, held liable for tax on concealed turnover of iron scrap, successfully argued that discrepancies in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A did not prove tax evasion, as genuine invoices and e-way bills supported the transactions. The court found the revenue authority's conclusion baseless and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, with provisions for adjusting any deposited amounts against the final demand. en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405472 The High Court allowed the petition challenging an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, held liable for tax on concealed turnover of iron scrap, successfully argued that discrepancies in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A did not prove tax evasion, as genuine invoices and e-way bills supported the transactions. The court found the revenue authority's conclusion baseless and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, with provisions for adjusting any deposited amounts against the final demand. Case-Laws GST Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405472