Case Law Details
Nakoda Unique Gold Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The case of Nakoda Unique Gold Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), heard by the Madras High Court, revolves around discrepancies between GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. This article delves into the court’s decision to set aside the assessment order due to procedural irregularities and appropriation of tax demand.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order primarily on the grounds of inadequate opportunity to contest the tax demand. A show cause notice issued regarding discrepancies between GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A remained unanswered, as it was uploaded in an obscure section of the GST portal. Subsequently, the impugned order was issued, appropriating a significant portion of the tax liability from the petitioner’s bank account and electronic credit ledger.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the discrepancy arose due to misreporting, specifying amounts under the wrong category. The petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The government advocate acknowledged the appropriation but lacked clarity on the recovery from the electronic credit ledger.
The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted fifteen days to respond to the show cause notice, with the respondent directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The outcome of the remanded proceedings would determine the appropriation of amounts towards the tax demand.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
