In the case of:
Tvl. Lakshmi Tex Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-1
W.P. No. 7005 of 2024
[2024] 160taxmann.com627 (Madras)
- The petitioner is a dealer of woven fabrics in cotton and readymade garments. He states that he could not submit reply to the SCN (with regard to with regard to disparity between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B returns) issued pursuant to scrutiny of the returns, as he was awaiting particulars from his supplier.
- The petitioner had enclosed the relevant purchase invoice to establish that there was no discrepancy and that consequently no tax liability is imposable. He also agrees to remit the pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax.
- The petitioner submitted appeal on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not provided to contest the tax demand.
It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras that:
- On examining the show cause notice and impugned order, it is clear that the entire tax liability is with regard to disparity between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B returns. The petitioner has, subsequent to the issuance of such order, explained that ITC was validly availed of by submitting documents in support thereof.
- Undoubtedly, the petitioner was negligent in not doing so upon receipt of SCN.
- Nonetheless, if the explanation of the petitioner is valid, the interest of justice would be prejudiced unless the petitioner is provided an opportunity to explain the alleged disparity.
- For the reasons set out above, the impugned order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits the pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax within 2 weeks.