In the case of M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt ltd vs State Tax Officer, the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras, the order was passed in favour of the Petitioner in the case of ITC claimed in GSTR 3B that was not found in GSTR 2A during 2017-18:
The Assessee was in the business of supplying and installing Point of Sales machinery. The SCN was served on 14.09.2023 due to a discrepancy observed between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, relating to FY 2017-18. The Assessee replied to Notices relying on circular No.183. The submissions were not considered and the order was passed by the officer on 29.12.2023 demanding liability for the difference.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Writ Petition of Certiorari, under Article 226, was filed in the High Court of Judicature of Madras.
The Petitioner contended in the submission that, the difference arose due to 3 reasons:
1. In GSTR 1, the Credit Notes relating to B2B were erroneously reported as B2C
2. The wrong reporting led to non reflection of credit for the Recipient of Service in GSTR 2A resulting in an excess claim of ITC in GSTR 3B as compared to GSTR 2A.
3. In GSTR 3 B, the Credit Notes were reported as a reversal of ITC in Table 4 instead of Table 3 reduction in Tax.
Upon receipt of the notice, the taxpayer has submitted the necessary documents namely invoices and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant as specified in Circular No.183 dt.27.12.2022.
The documents produced along with the Chartered Accountant Certificate were rejected by the Officer.
further, the Additional Government Pleader argued that, the Petitioner should have reflected the Credit Notes in the appropriate Table. The explanation of the Petitioner was not examined through verification of breakup of B2C.
It was held that there was no revenue loss to the Government due to reducing the Credit Note tax amount from ITC instead of reducing from the output tax liability. The impugned order was set aside and remanded back for reconsideration by the Respondent.
Author Bio
