GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT (GST Case)Oasys Cybernetics (P) Ltd -vs- The State Tax OfficerOrder dated 12.04.2024 in WP/9624/2024 by Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
[30/05, 09:06] sekarreporter1: GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT (GST Case)
Oasys Cybernetics (P) Ltd -vs- The State Tax Officer
Order dated 12.04.2024 in WP/9624/2024 by Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
Facts:
The Petitioner is in the business of supplying and installing point of sale machines in the ration shops operated by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. A show cause notice dated 14.09.2023 in respect of the assessment period, 2017-18, with regard to the discrepancies to the Petitioner’s GSTR-3B return and the auto-populated GSTR-2A was issued. It was replied to on 10.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 by enclosing annexures. Without considering the same, the impugned order was issued on 29.12.2023. It is contended by the Petitioner that since it was the first year of implementation of GST statues, the credit notes were not reflected under the 9(b) heading of GSTR-1 statements, and was instead reflected in the heading related to B2C (Others) transactions. The credit notes were erroneously reported as input tax credit, and there was no revenue impact as a consequence. The relevant credit notes were also enclosed along with the reply. In respect of other reasons for discrepancy, a certificate dated 16.12.2023 from the Chartered Accountant in compliance with the Circular No. 183 was submitted, however, these contentions were not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer, and the ITC to the extent of Rs. 4,08,39,428/- was reversed because the Petitioner made an inadvertent error in the manner of operating in the GSTR-1 statement. The counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner should have correctly reflected the credit notes in the GSTR-1 statement under the appropriate heading, pertaining to credit/debit notes.
Findings:
On examining the above findings in the impugned order, the explanation of the Petitioner was not duly examined from the perspective of ascertaining whether the amount reflected in the ITC, tallies with the value of credit notes issued by the Petitioner. If such exercise had been carried out, it would become clear as to whether there was a revenue loss by way of excess availment of ITC. It is unclear as to why the certificate of a chartered accountant was rejected because no reasons are discernable from the impugned order, hence, the impugned order is set aside, and as a corollary, the matter is remanded back to the Respondent for reconsideration and the Respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order after taking into consideration of the contentions of the Petitioner.
[30/05, 09:06] sekarreporter1: .
