9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to: A. ISSUE a Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any such / other writ, direction or order to QUASH the Impugned Order issued by Respondent No. 1 dated 26.12.2024 bearing No. ZD2912240868026 and ಸಂ:ವಾತಅ(ಲಪ)-5/ಮ./ನ೦.2024-25 dated 26 12.2024 (Annexures A2 & A11); and B. GRANT such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, as the facts and circumstances of this case warrant." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Madras High Court in the case of M/S. OASYS CYBERNETICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE TAX OFFICER, referred Supra, wherein, it is held as below: "An assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying and installing point of sale machines in ration shops operated by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation by integrating the same with a central server. In respect of assessment period 2017-18, the petitioner received show cause notice dated 14.09.2023 with regard to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR-3B returns and the auto populated GSTR-2A. Such show cause notice was replied to on 10.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 by enclosing annexures. The impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner should have reflected the credit notes in the GSTR-1 statement under the appropriate heading pertaining to credit / debit notes. He also submits that the amounts mentioned under the heading 7-B2C does not tally with the value of credit notes issued by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has placed the GSTR-1 statement on record. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, no entries are made with regard to credit / debit notes. Instead, in the heading relating to B2C, total invoice value of minus Rs.15,58,21,210.14/- and total taxable value of minus Rs. 13,20,51,873/- is shown. In the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss by way of excess availment of ITC. Since such exercise was not carried out and findings were recorded confirming the tax demand merely because credit notes were not duly reported in GSTR-1 or in the auto populated GSTR 2A, the impugned order calls for interference on this issue. 6. As regards the provision of a Chartered Accountant's certificate to explain the discrepancy to the extent of about Rs. 53,18,913/-, the impugned order merely records that the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the petitioner's reply are not accepted. It is unclear as to why the certificate was rejected because no reasons are discernible from the impugned order. 7. For reasons set out above, the impugned order calls for interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
