GSTR-3B & E-Way Bill: Jharkhand HC directs department to explain differences

VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court)

In the case of VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. vs Union of India, the Jharkhand High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner contested the assessment order issued by the 5th respondent following ASMT-10 notices under Rule 99. The petitioner argued that it did not understand the basis for comparing taxes declared in GSTR-3B returns with e-way bill data, emphasizing that the two datasets differ fundamentally in their source and structure. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about the technical feasibility of such a comparison.

Despite the detailed reply submitted on May 24, 2024, the respondent dismissed the petitioner’s contentions without addressing them, stating only that the reply was “not satisfactory.” The court observed that the purpose of ASMT-10 is to invite and consider responses from taxpayers, which was not appropriately done in this case. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent to provide the petitioner with a detailed breakdown of the tax differences within two weeks. The petitioner was granted an additional four weeks to respond. Furthermore, the court instructed the respondent to provide a personal hearing and issue a reasoned, detailed order addressing the petitioner’s reply.

The court emphasized procedural fairness in tax assessment and remitted the matter back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and due process in tax proceedings under the JGST Act, 2017.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the 5t^h respondent under section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019-20.

3. No doubt the 5^th respondent had issued ASMT-10 under Rule 99 to which there was a reply submitted on 24.05.2024 (Annexure-4). In the reply the petitioner specifically raised a plea that it has not understood the basis of comparing taxes paid in GSTR3B with e-way bill data as technically the base information of both the statements is different. It is also contended that comparison of GSTR3B and e-way bill, document, taxes is not possible for certain reasons enumerated therein.

4. In the impugned order passed by the 5t^h respondent there is no reference to this contention raised by the petitioner at all and it is simply stated that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory.

5. Since the purpose of issuing ASMT-10 is to invite a reply and then consider the said reply. We fail to understand why the 5th respondent did not aver to the contention raised in the reply filed by the petitioner and brushed it aside by simply saying it is not satisfactory.

6. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 31.08.2024 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 5t^h respondent who shall furnish to the petitioner the basis of making the demand i.e. breakup as to how the difference amount was arrived at; such information be furnished within two weeks from today; petitioner is permitted to file a reply thereto within four weeks from the date of furnishing of the said information by the 5^th respondent; personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner; and then a reasoned order be passed after considering the reply of the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the same stands allowed.