<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Adjudication Quashed for Ignoring Annual Returns and Improper ITC Reconciliation Under GST Rules</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91093</link>
    <description>The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner&#039;s annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Adjudication Quashed for Ignoring Annual Returns and Improper ITC Reconciliation Under GST Rules</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91093</link>
      <description>The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner&#039;s annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>