2025 (7) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Order dated 29.04.2024 bearing No.GSTIN/33AAAPI4538D1Z9/2018-19 passed by the Respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of film production under the name and style of Tvl.Vels Film International. On scrutinization of the annual returns filed by the petitioner in GSTR 09 for the Financial Year 2018-19 as well as the information furnished by the petitioner in GSTR 01, GSTR 2A, GSTR 3B, EWD, it was found that the petitioner did not declare their correct tax liability while filing the annual returns of GSTR 09. Hence, the respondent had issued a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 27.12.2023 bearing Ref.ID: ZD331223215050B calling upon the petitioner to submit their objections in DRC-06, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2024 to the petitioner stating that difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR 3B vs. GSTR 2A, in response to which, the petitioner filed their Reply dated 24.04.2024 explaining that instead of paying the tax amount under CGST & SGST, they have paid the tax amount under IGST and hence, there was difference in ITC availed in GSTR 3B vs. GSTR 2A. However, without considering the petitioner's reply, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Shollinganallur Assessment Circle vide Adjudication Order dated 26.04.2024, confirmed the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2024. 5.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner filed an Application dated 26.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 27.12.2023, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sholinganallur Assessment Circle had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2024 to the petitioner stating that difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR 3B vs. GSTR 2A, to which, the petitioner filed their Reply dated 24.04.2024 explaining that the difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B is due to the payment of GST in IGST instead of CGST and SGST, but, without considering the same, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Shollinganallur Assessment Circle vide Adjudication Order dated 26.04.2024, confirmed the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2024. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an Application dated 26.06.2024, seeking to rectify the mistake in the Adjudicatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the CGST Act. 12. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and further, the respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind. Once the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit. Hence, this Court issues the following directions: (i) The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 bearing No.GSTIN/33AAAPI4538D1Z9/2018-19 passed by the respondent is quashed. ....