TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drawn the attention of this Court to the show cause issued in form GST DRC - 01 dated 12th April 2023 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018. By referring to the discrepancy no. 2 he submits that when the aforesaid discrepancy was first notified in a proceeding under Section 61 of the said Act in Form GST ASMT 10 intimating short payment of tax on inward supply (RCM) amounting to Rs. 176,905/-, the petitioner had duly clarified its position by identifying payment of tax in form GST DRC-03 dated 6th February, 2020. Consequent thereupon, when the show cause notice was issued by considering the response given by the petitioner, the claim on account short payment of tax was dropped since it was noted that the petitioner had made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns in form GSTR-9 and the returns filed in form GSTR-9C with the auto generated statements in form GSTR-2A and came to the conclusion that the case of excess availment of ITC on account of IGST to the extent of Rs. 43,79,728.73/- does not arise. 5. Notwithstanding the above and despite acknowledging that the petitioner had not availed excess ITC, the appellate authority on the basis of perusal of the records had noted that the petitioner had made reversal of tax (IGST) to the tune of Rs. 2,04,203/- for the period 2017-18 through form GST DRC-03 on 6th February 2020 and accordingly has held the petitioner liable for payment of interest, for having paid IGST of Rs. 2,04,203/- after the due. According to Mr. Majumdar the aforesaid determ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of IGST has been belatedly made, has not been denied. On the issue of denial of ITC by reasons of the petitioner having filed the return in GSTR 3B beyond the prescribed period, she acknowledges the fact that having regard to the provision contained in Section 16(5) of the said Act, such demand can no longer be sustained, though the appellate authority cannot be faulted for having passed the order, since the order was passed on the basis of the law as was subsisting. 9. Having heard the learned the advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I notice that although, the proper officer had accepted the payment made by the petitioner under discrepancy no. 2 on the basis of explanation provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f ITC is also not sustainable for reasons noted herein below. The petitioner has initially been issued a show cause notice for having availed excess ITC to the tune of Rs. 43,79,728.73/-. Incidentally, although the proper officer while passing the order under Section 73 of the said Act had confirmed such demand, however, on an appeal being filed, the appellate authority upon scrutinizing the returns filed by the petitioner in form GSTR 3B under Section 39 of the said Act and the annual returns filed in form GSTR 9 along with statements in form GSTR 2A and other returns, had come to the finding that the same was by reason of a simple clerical mistake on the part of the appellant in not incorporating the figure of ITC under the head 'IGST' fo....