https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78681 The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and not participating in proceedings. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed demand for a remand. In the interest of justice, the court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner to contest the tax demand by placing relevant documents on record. The impugned order was set aside on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:50:15 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:50:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78681 The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and not participating in proceedings. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed demand for a remand. In the interest of justice, the court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner to contest the tax demand by placing relevant documents on record. The impugned order was set aside on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. Highlights GST Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:50:15 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78681