IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2024
CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.8564 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9507, 9510 &
9512 of 2024
M/s.Metal India Corporation,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.Lalith Kumar Jain,
14/2, New No.32, Mooker Nallamuthu Street,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu~600 001. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Broadway Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Tax Building,
No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Chennai~600 003.
2.The State Tax Officer,
Broadway Assessment Circle,
Chennai~600 001.
3.The Branch Manager,
Bank of Baroda, EC.Street Branch,
Eraballu Chetty Street,
Chennai~600 001.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records relating to the impugned order in GSTIN
No.33AAFPJ3811K1ZY/2017~2018 dated 05.10.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent
against the petitioner and quash the same, and consequently direct the 1st
respondent to reverse the petitioner-s ITC to the tune of Rs.9,90,426 CGST and
Rs.9,97,476 SGST, which was debited on 19.01.2024.
For
Petitioner : Mr.Abdul Rahman
for M/s.Nathan and Associates
For
R1 & R2 : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala,
Govt. Adv. (T)
O R D E R
1. An
order dated 05.10.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner had
rectified the error committed while filing the GSTR 3B return for the assessment
period 2017~2018 in the annual return and that the same was also taken note of
in the assessment order dated 26.12.2023.
2. The
petitioner asserts that a mistake was committed inadvertently while filing the
GSTR 3B return in as much as the petitioner wrongly entered eligible Input Tax
Credit (ITC) in -Inward Supplies (Liable to Reverse Charge)- instead of -All
Other ITC-. Upon realising this error, a detailed reconciliation statement was
provided to explain the mismatch when compared with the auto~populated GSTR 2A
return. In the annual return filed in GSTR 9, it is stated that the error was
rectified. The present writ petition was filed in view of order dated
05.10.2023, which deals with the same issue as was considered in order dated
26.12.2023, but imposes liability on the petitioner.
3. Learned
counsel for the petitioner referred to the order dated 26.12.2023 and pointed
out that the mismatch between the GSTR 3B and 2A returns was considered in such
order and it was concluded that the proposal is dropped in view of the fact
that the petitioner had corrected the mistake in the annual return and reversed
the ITC availed of under the wrong head.
4. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala,
learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 & 2. She
submits that the impugned order was issued because the petitioner failed to
respond to the show cause notice dated 22.08.2023. She further submits that if
relevant documents had been placed before the respondents, the issue would have
been resolved.
5. The
petitioner has placed on record the GSTR 3B return for the assessment period
2017~2018 and has pointed out that the error occurred because the ITC figures
were wrongly mentioned in row -4(A)(3)- instead of -4(A)(5)-. The order dated
26.12.2023 took note of the fact that the petitioner rectified the error while
filing the annual return and consequently dropped the proposal. In view of this
order, the order dated 05.10.2023 requires reconsideration.
6. Therefore,
the order dated 05.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for
reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show
cause notice dated 22.08.2023 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the 2nd respondent is directed to provide
a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and
thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the petitioner-s reply. For the avoidance of doubt, it is made clear
that the sum of Rs.19,87,902/~, which was appropriated from the petitioner-s
credit ledger shall abide by the outcome of the remanded proceedings. As a
corollary to the assessment order being quashed, the bank attachment stands
raised.
7. The
writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on
the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court
or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding
of laws & not binding on anyone.
