GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT(G.S.T.CASE)* *TOKYO ZAINYO(INDIA) PVT.LTD. -vs- The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.8817/24 – 2.4.2024 – Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy.* *Facts of the Case:* Pursuant to an audit under Section 65 of applicable GST Enactments, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the
[29/05/2024, 08:08] [28/05, 07:40] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1795130663735005210?t=hW0BAxpypexQ5ppBHaj_qA&s=08
[28/05, 07:40] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT(G.S.T.CASE)*
*TOKYO ZAINYO(INDIA) PVT.LTD. -vs- The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.8817/24 – 2.4.2024 – Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy.*
*Facts of the Case:*
Pursuant to an audit under Section 65 of applicable GST Enactments, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the
Petitioner on 30.09.2023. The Petitioner replied to the Audit Report on 28.11.2023. An Assessment Order was made on 29.12.2023.
The impugned order was challenged on the ground that the Petitioner’s Reply was dis-regarded as an “unauthorised reply”. It is contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner failed to produce a separate Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the Tamil Nadu and in view of the same, the tax demand was confirmed.
*Findings:*
Thus it is clear that the Petitioner’s reply was disregarded by categorising such reply as an unauthorised. It is unclear as to why the reply was described as unauthorised. In any event, the impugned order is vitiated by non-consideration of the Petitioner’s reply. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The Respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order
[29/05/2024, 08:08] K Selvaraj Mhc Ss Firm: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT (GST Case)*
*L&T Finance Ltd -vs- The Asst. Commissioner*
Order dated 12.04.2024 in WP/9652/2024 by *Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.*
*Facts:*
Pursuant to an Audit of the books of Accounts of the Petitioner a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 was issued to the Petitioner. Such notice was replied to by the Petitioner on 14.10.2023 and 27.10.2023. However, the impugned assessment order was issued on 31.12.2023. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the difference in outward turnover between the books of account and various returns arose on account of not reporting of all transactions in the GSTR-1. The Petitioner had rectified the same subsequently, by filing annual return in GSTR-9. The demand with respect to the addition of assets and depreciation is erroneous on the face of it. The Learned Government Advocate contended that the Petitioner failed to provide proper bifurcation of turnover pertaining to its Pan-India operations and Tamil Nadu operations and failed to appear before the Assessing office for personal hearing and did not submit all relevant documents
*Findings:*
Although the order refers to a personal hearing notice issued on 31.12.2023, there is nothing on record to indicate that such a personal hearing was issued. On examining the impugned order, with regard to the turnover discrepancy, as between the difference returns, it is noticeable that the Petitioner explained the difference in its reply dated 28.07.2023. This aspect has not been noticed in the impugned order. Likewise, as regards the Petitioner’s claim that the turnover of Rs. 43,68,93,176/- is exempted, the impugned order records that only a copy of the statement of account was provided. Therefore, it is clear that, without providing a personal hearing to the Petitioner, the impugned order is passed. Therefore, the impugned order is unstainable. It is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The Petitioner is permitted to submit additional documents in support of its reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the Respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within 2 months from the date of receipt of additional documents from the Petitioner.
[30/05/2024, 09:04] *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.
[30/05/2024, 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.
[30/05/2024, 09:08] sekarreporter1: [30/05, 09:08] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1796023218844618765?t=JTJOIexn9o6IMugbpWuRug&s=08
[30/05, 09:08] sekarreporter1: [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: .
