Goverdhandham Estate Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
In the matter abovementioned that HC held that hat once the explanation with regard to discrepancy in the return is offered and accepted, further proceedings are not required to be drawn.
Petitioner runs a hotel and registered under GST. It was issued a notice in GST ASMT-10 intimating certain discrepancies which stated that the petitioner had availed ITC which was not available to him as per Section 17(5) of the RGST. ITC on payment made for purchase of lift and payment made for purchase of Air Conditioners were under block credit as per Section 17(5) of the RGST. It was alleged that the petitioner was liable to reverse the tax amounting to Rs.18,44,884/- (SGST amounting to Rs.9,22,442/- and CGST amounting to Rs.9,22,442/-), along with interest under Section 50 RGST In response petitioner submitted preliminary reply that ITC would be available on the plant and machinery which is used for making outward supply of service. However, SCN u/s 73 GST for tax recovery was issued. A communication in FORM No.GST ASMT-12 was issued, wherein it was stated that reply to notice was found to be satisfactory and no further action is required to be taken in the matter. However, it was also stated that issuance of ASMT-12 does not affect the validity of show cause notice issued. Despite that SCN was not withdrawn and proceedings were not dropped.
