2025 (11) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overnment Pleader Mr. Abhishek Jain for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Abhishek Jain waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 4. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 1.1.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Gujarat Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Appellate Order passed under Section 107 of the Act dated 18.6.2025. 5. The brief facts lead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax credit as per Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A was concerned, the demand was confirmed by the impugned order. 5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, a physical copy of the order was dispatch on 27.1.2025, which was received by the petitioner on or around 1.2.2025. The Physical copy was received by one of the employees of the petitioner and through oversight did not inform the proprietor of the petitioner concerned regarding receipt of the order. In wake of the impugned adjudication order, the bank account of the petitioner was attached on 9.5.2025. That was the point when the petitioner came in knowledge about the adjudication order. Therefore, online appeal was preferred challenging ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heth that issuance of show cause notice and passing of Order-in-Original only on the ground of difference between input tax credit claim as per Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The Petitioner has given explanation regarding the difference which is only because of the fact that credit notes issued by the supplier have been accounted for by admitting output tax liability instead of showing the same as reduction in column of input tax credit. The difference is thus because of a venial reason having no revenue implication. The explanation given by the Petitioner has been brushed aside by a cryptic reason that it is not supported by any section or rule. This has led to double taxation by the impugned orde....