S.P.K. Enterprises Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-I (Madras High Court)
In the matter abovementioned Hon’ble HC disposed off the writ petition after observing that impugned order traversed beyond the scope of SCN.
Petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract and is registered under GST. During 2018-19, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. During scrutiny, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of ITC and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B vs. GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B. Accordingly, notices were issued to recover short payment of taxes. Reminders were also issued however no compliance was made on behalf of the petitioner. Impugned order was passed on the premise that there are certain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that alleged discrepancies between GSTR-3B vs. GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B were never the subject matter of notice and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained. Reliance was also placed on Section 75(7) of the GST Act which provide that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice. Impugned order traverses beyond the SCN, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. On the other hand, revenue argued that petitioner may submit their response treating the impugned order
as SCN and submit its reply along with supporting materials within a period of two weeks.
