Case Law Details
AP Studio Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
The writ petition filed by AP Studio Enterprises challenges an order dated 29.12.2023, citing discrepancies between their GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by a supplier. Despite providing explanations and evidence, the order was issued against the petitioner.
The petitioner, through their counsel, presented the reply to the show cause notice along with certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant. Additionally, a rectification petition was filed enclosing all relevant documents, which was recently rejected. However, the Additional Government Pleader contends that the petitioner failed to submit a reply through the GST portal, despite being given a reasonable opportunity.
Key documents, including certificates from the supplier and the Chartered Accountant, were not considered while issuing the impugned order. This failure to consider vital evidence warrants interference with the order.
The court sets aside the order dated 29.12.2023 and remands the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is granted 15 days to submit a reply to the show cause notice, enclosing all relevant documents. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 29.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023. The said show cause notice was replied to on 16.10.2023 by stating that the reason for discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A was the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier in respect of one invoice. The petitioner states that he was unable to upload the reply on the portal. The order impugned herein was issued in the said facts and circumstances.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the above mentioned reply and also to the certificate obtained from the supplier and the Chartered Accountant of the supplier. He also submits that a rectification petition was filed by enclosing all these documents, but the same was rejected recently.
3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the respondent. With reference to the impugned order, he submits that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand and failed to submit a reply through the GST portal.
4. The petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 31.10.2023 from Fivestar Impex India Private Limited stating that the supply was made under invoice dated 01.11.2017. A certificate from Prabhakaran & Associates, Chartered Accountant is also on record. The said certificate provides the details of invoice dated 01.11.2017 for a total value of Rs.18,82,000/-. The e-mail dated 18.10.2023 is also on record. These documents were not taken into account while issuing the impugned order. For such reason, the order impugned herein calls for interference.
5. Therefore, the order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by enclosing all relevant documents. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
