Mohd Abdul Bari vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Commercial Taxes (SGST) Maldah Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority failed to properly apply its mind to the GSTR-9 return filed by the petitioner. The extract from the appellate order showed a focus on GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and books of accounts, with only a brief, insufficient reference to GSTR-9. The Court found that if the petitioner's contention that taxes were paid and reflected in GSTR-9, with only a minor shortfall of approximately Rs. 100, was correct, then the appellate order imposing tax to the tune of Rs. 3,91,785.35 each for CGST and SGST could not be considered a product of proper application of mind. On this ground alone, the part of the appellate order finding the petitioner liable for CGST and SGST to the tune of Rs. 3,91,785.35 each was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, with specific instructions to properly consider the GSTR-9 return. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and the appellate authority was free to verify and examine the claim based on the material on record. Other parts of the appellate order were not interfered with.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Abdul Bari, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 16, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order modified an earlier order dated January 20, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The petitioner contended that he had paid applicable taxes on outward supplies and indicated them in his GSTR-1 for April (Financial Year 2020-2021). However, due to technical glitches, these taxes were not reflected in GSTR-3B. He rectified this error in his annual return, GSTR-9. Proceedings under Section 73 were initiated due to mismatches. An ex-parte demand order was passed under Section 73(9) as the petitioner failed to reply to the show-cause notice. The appellate authority, while considering the petitioner's appeal, determined a sum of Rs. 3,91,785.00 each was payable for CGST and SGST, along with interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority properly considered the petitioner's contention that the tax liability was rectified in the GSTR-9 return, and if the omission to do so constitutes a non-application of mind, thereby vitiating the appellate order under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the mistake in GSTR-3B was rectified in GSTR-9, and all taxes due had been paid. He contended that the difference between taxes paid and those reflected in GSTR-9 was minimal, around Rs. 100. He relied on Ground 8 of the writ petition and Grounds 15 and 17 of his appeal before the appellate authority to demonstrate that this issue was raised. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was silent on the non-application of mind by the appellate authority regarding GSTR-9, and no such ground was taken before the appellate authority.