Tvl. Hansraj and Company Vs Assistant Commissioner
Date: February 26, 2024
Subject Matter
GSTR2A vs GSTR3B mismatch due to wrong GSTIN: Matter remanded for fresh assessment
Summary
The petitioner, a registered person under applicable GST laws, challenged an assessment order disallowing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner due to discrepancies in the details submitted in the petitioner’s return compared to the GSTR-2A return. The petitioner explained that the relevant invoice was issued by the petitioner’s supplier, but with the wrong GSTIN, and sought to rectify the error. Upon review, it was found that the GSTIN of another entity was wrongly mentioned by the supplier in the return. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the assessing officer to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh assessment order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner assails an assessment order dated 25.08.2023 by which the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner was disallowed on the ground that the details submitted in the petitioner’s return did not tally with that in the GSTR-2A return.
2. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST laws. He received show cause notice dated 27.01.2023 alleging that he had made an excess claim of ITC and that this was evident on comparing his GSTR-3B return with the GSTR-2A return. By reply dated 01.08.2023, the petitioner explained that the relevant invoice was issued by the petitioner’s supplier, M/s. Kirthi Enterprises, but that they had wrongly indicated the GSTIN of the sister concern of the petitioner, namely, Premier Corporations. By stating that this reply was disregarded and the proposal to impose tax, interest and penalty was confirmed, this writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to invoice no.123 dated 20.09.2017 of Kirthi Enterprises. By further referring to the GSTR-1 return of Kirthi Enterprises, he pointed out that invoice no.123 was wrongly shown as having been issued to Premier Corporation. Since the availment of ITC was based on a genuine purchase by the petitioner from Kirthi Enterprises, learned counsel submits that the impugned order warrants interference.
4. Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He submits that the petitioner should take recourse to rectification proceedings if the return was wrongly filed by the supplier.
5. The documents on record, such as invoice dated 20.09.2017 and the GSTR return of Kirthi Enterprises, prima facie indicate that the GSTIN of Premier Corporation was wrongly mentioned by Kirthi Enterprises in the return. If that is indeed the case, the petitioner would be unjustly deprived of ITC. In order to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to redress this grievance, interference with the impugned order is called for.
6. For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer. The assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months thereafter. It is also open to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition, if necessary, to set right the error complained of by the petitioner.
7. W.P.No.4523 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.4896 and 4898 of 2024 are closed.