GST Library
Login | Register
About GST Library
Subscription
GST News
GST Calendar
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
Classification by CTA
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
GST Videos

GST e-Books

GST Domains Sale New

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd
TM
Free Daily GST updates on...
twitter
8882663036
Read Full Case Law
Hon'ble Judges:

RAJIV SHAKDHER
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
P
E
T
I
T
I
O
N
E
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
D
E
N
T
COUNCIL
Puneet Agarwal
Purvi Sinha
Ketan Jain
COUNCIL
Chiranjiv Kumar
Mukesh Sachdeva
Anuj Aggarwal

GST Officer raised demand of Rs.18 crores for tax discrepancy in GSTR-3B vs. GSTR-1 in the month of March 2019, which was voluntary rectified by taxpayer in April 2019. High Court directed officer to examine the issue and issue the requisite directions.

Petitioner:

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that via the impugned order dated 24.07.2021, respondent no.4, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, DGST has raised a demand concerning tax amounting to Rs.18.06 crores along with interest and 100% penalty on account of the purported difference between the contents of two returns i.e., GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

According to petitioner, the difference arose on account of one invoice, which was inadvertently not filed with the return [i.e., GSTR-3B] submitted for March 2019.

Mr. Puneet Agarwal (who appears on behalf of the petitioner) says that the error was corrected in the subsequent return filed for April 2019.

It is Mr. Puneet Agarwal’s contention that the requisite tax, along with interest, has been deposited.

It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Puneet Agarwal that if this aspect is taken into account i.e., that the petitioner corrected the error in April 2019, almost nothing will be payable by the petitioner, insofar as the tax and interest are concerned.

Revenue:

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 4/revenue, says that the concerned officer will examine the contentions raised by the petitioner, along with the necessary documents filed in support of the contentions.

It is Mr. Anuj Aggarwal’s submission that if the concerned officer is satisfied, requisite directions will be issued.

It is further stated that in case there is difficulty in uploading the orders on the web portal, orders will be passed by the concerned authority in the manual mode.

Held:

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, with the following directions:

(i) The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition will be examined by the concerned officer by treating it as representation.

(ii) The concerned officer will grant opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner. For this purpose, the concerned officer will communicate the date, time and venue of at which hearing will be granted. In case it is not possible to conduct the hearing physically, a link will be sent for hearing via video-conferencing mechanism.

(iii) Pending the disposal of the representation, no precipitate action will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.12.2017.

(iv) In the event the decision arrived at by the concerned officer is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, no precipitate action will be taken for two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the decision by the petitioner.

 

  Read Full Case Law

Digital GST Library
Plan starts from
₹ 2,700
(for 1 Year)
Checkout all Plans
Unlimited access till
Jun 30, 2022
✓ Subscribe Now
Author:

TaxReply


May 7, 2022

Comments


ddfee efeqed wefqeqew
By: Hemant Jadhav | Dt: May 9, 2022


Post your comment here !

Login to Comment


Other Articles


GST Council Meet decisions: Sources

By: TaxReply on Jun 28, 2022
  Read more GST updates...