AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner’s grievance is with the Adjudication Order dated 25.04.2024 [Annexure-B] under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’] and the associated provisions thereunder. These proceedings under Section 73 of the Act is begun with the petitioner being served with the Intimation under Section 73[5] of the Act read with Rule 142[1A] of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. This Intimation dated 24.11.2023 is followed by the Show Cause Notice dated 16.01.2024.
The petitioner, when served with this Notice, has filed Reply dated 29.01.2024 stating that the actual turnover for December 2018 is Rs.7,76,000/- as declared in Form GSTR-3B but by an inadvertence and a clerical error, the turnover is declared as Rs.9,79,350/- in Form GSTR-1 and that this error is because the petitioner has uploaded certain bills twice and mentioned the rate of tax wrongly in respect of certain bills. The petitioner, along with this Reply, has furnished copies such as the Sales Ledger Extract, Invoices and other statements. However, the second respondent has completed the adjudication only stating that “Reply given by the taxpayer is verified and found that the documents given are insufficient to substantiate the claim and hence the Reply is not acceptable.”
Ms. Shyamala V Devagiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent, when the petitioner is categorical about the error and has produced documents to substantiate the error, should have considered the documents produced and reasoned why these documents would not suffice rather than confirming the proposition making a general observation. Mr K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard on whether this Court must intervene with the impugned Adjudication Order dated 25.04.2024 and restore the proceedings for reconsideration.
The petitioner is categorical in the Reply on the reason for the difference in the turnover for December 2018 in stating that two bills have been uploaded twice by mistake and that the rate of tax for two invoices is wrongly mentioned. The petitioner, while stating these with reference to the corresponding invoices, has enclosed copies of the Invoices/Sales Ledger Extract/Statements which are also marked as annexures in the present petition. This Court is of the view that the second respondent should have considered the efficacy of these documents for a meaningful opportunity and that the failure in this regard justifies an answer to the above question in the affirmative. Hence the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition is allowed in part;
[b] The impugned Adjudication Order dated 25.04.2024 [Annexure-B] is quashed.
[c] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order and the different enclosures annexed to this petition with the second respondent by 05.10.2026, and the second respondent shall consider these documents in the context of the petitioner’s response to decide on the affirmation of the proposition in the Show Cause Notice dated 16.01.2024.