No, the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of Murugan Metals vs. The State Officer (ST) (W.P.No.16582 of 2024 dated 25.06.2024) set aside the impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2023 on the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Honorable Court observed that the petitioner’s reply dated 11.01.2023 included the GSTR-3B returns for the assessment period 2017-18, along with a comparison statement between the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B returns. However, the assessing officer did not appear to have considered these documents while confirming the tax proposal. Additionally, the petitioner failed to participate in subsequent proceedings or file the reconciliation statement in GSTR-9C. Considering these circumstances, the Honorable Court deemed it necessary to reconsider the case but also to impose conditions on the petitioner. The Honorable Court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including hearing, and to issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the remittance. Consequently, the bank statement was raised.
Author’s Comment
Whether to celebrate such an order that remands back the case to the Proper Officer for another round of adjudication (re-adjudication) is a matter of choice and strategy. In the author’s considered opinion, such orders are unable to fetch the desired relief because SCN is not vacated, only a short-term relief (at a cost) is provided in this long battle. The petitioner could have disputed the cause of action (2A v 3B) invoked, and the burden to proof would have been on the revenue to prove their case. Important to mention that mismatch/linear comparison of two data sets (GSTR-2A whose authorship is not with taxpayer v GSTR-3B) is meaningless in GST. Yes, it could raise suspicion, but without evidence, it is impossible to bring home the allegations levelled against the taxpayer.
Share this content: