Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court recently ruled in the case of M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner Chennai [WP No. 28092 of 2023 dated September 25, 2023], highlighting the importance of complying with Rule 88C of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 when effecting recovery based on differences between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.
Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and held that, no recovery can be effected directly based on the difference in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B without complying with the requirements stated in Rule 88C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”).
Facts:
M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) had filed the writ petition challenging the recovery notice dated September 13, 2023 (“the Impugned Notice”) issued by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”), on the ground that the procedural safeguards prescribed under Rule 88C under the CGST Rules inserted vide Notification No. 26/2022 dated December 26, 2022 has not been complied with. The Respondent after the filing of reply by the Petitioner seeks to invoke recovery proceedings under Section 75(12) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) read with Rule 88C of the CGST Rules.
Issue:
Whether recovery proceedings due to differences in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B can be effected without complying with Rule 88C of CGST Rules?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the case of W.P. No. 28092 of 2023 held as under:
