2024 (6) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents: : Mr. V. Prasanth Kiran Government Advocate(T) ORDER An order in original dated 28.09.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was not taken into consideration. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 27.04.2023 alleging mismatch betwe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R 2A and GSTR 3B, learned counsel pointed out that such difference was on account of one supplier, S.M.Network, not reflecting the invoices in returns filed by such supplier. Learned counsel also pointed out that the annual return and the relevant invoices were enclosed with the reply to the show cause notice. By turning to the impugned order, learned counsel points out that the petitioner's e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lect the total value of credit notices as Rs. 68,91,320/-. As regards the variation in input tax credit between the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, the petitioner has explained the difference by pointing out that one of the suppliers, S.M.Network, did not reflect invoices for supplies made by such supplier. The relevant invoices were enclosed with the reply. In th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ite of the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and the annual return in GSTR 9 being available, no reasons are specified as to why the petitioner's explanation was rejected. Even with regard to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, in spite of the petitioner enclosing the relevant invoices to explain the discrepancy, the impugned order does ....