GST SCRUITINY
Raja Abhishek NIRC Candidate
Regional Council Candidate for NIRC 2024 | Fighting for Tax Simplification, against Unnecessary Demands and Notices in GST and Direct Taxes | 9810638155
Section 61, along with Rule 99, are provisions for Scrutiny under GST Laws.
Notice: ASMT-10
Reply: ASMT-11
Order: ASMT-12
There are various case laws that could help you.
1. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - Gauhati High Court
When Form ASMT-10 wasn't issued to the assessee, issuing the demand-cum-show cause notice U/s 73 was non-compliant. The notice should be stayed until the writ petition is disposed of.
Note: I disagree with this judgment.
2. Devi Traders - Andhra Pradesh
ARR: Scrutiny of returns under section 61 of CGST Act is not an essential condition for initiating proceedings to demand tax under section 74.
3. Shiva Jyoti Construction - Orissa High Court
ARR: Where no loss would occur to department as there was no escapement of tax if petitioner was permitted to rectify error of GST returns, petitioner was to be permitted to resubmit corrected Forms.
4. Deepa Traders - Madras High Court
Error occurred in mentioning recipient's GSTIN/name, invoice number/date: Rectification was to be permitted when errors committed while furnishing returns were clearly inadvertent. ARR
5. Raju Joseph - Kerala High Court
ARR: Where assessee's claim for input tax credit was refused as there was discrepancy between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B, Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, provides amendment procedure in case of such discrepancy.
6. Daksh Enterprise - Gujarat High Court
Where in response to SCN, assessee filed reply a day prior to last date fixed, but impugned demand order was passed without considering same, there was violation of principles of natural justice. ARR
7. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. - Allahabad High Court
Misreading of return figures. Demand of GST against assessee was confirmed on ground that figures shown in annual return filed in Form GSTR-09 did not tally with bank statement. ARR
Admittedly, Assessing Officer
as well as Appellate Authority had misread figures of aforesaid return by taking into consideration part figure pertaining to supplies made to unregistered persons i.e. B2C category and not total figures of supply correctly reflected in aforesaid return.
Demand of GST based on misreading of figures shown in annual return should be set aside.
Note: GST Department approached Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court and the SLP of Department was rejected by the Supreme Court.
Thanks
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155