Gopal Datt Bhatt vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The petitioner highlighted discrepancies arising from the non-capturing of GSTR-3B entries and reverse charge mechanism payments, leading to erroneous demands. The respondent, representing the State, conceded that if miscalculations or arithmetical errors occurred, the department was open to reconsideration and remitting the matter. In light of this, the Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application under the second proviso to Section 161 of the GST Act. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, it shall be considered without reference to the limitation period imposed by the first proviso. The application is to be considered and disposed of on merits by the Assessing Officer. Until the disposal of the application, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, provided the application under Section 161 is made within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Gopal Datt Bhatt, approached the Uttarakhand High Court challenging show cause notices and orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Haldwani. These notices and orders, pertaining to the financial year 2019-20 (April 2019 to March 2020), demanded tax amounts of Rs. 88,940/-, Rs. 68,940/-, and Rs. 100,892/- respectively. The petitioner contended that discrepancies arose due to the non-capturing of GSTR-3B entries and tax paid under the reverse charge mechanism, despite these being correctly reflected in GSTR-3B. This, the petitioner argued, led to wrongful demands and a situation where the tax demand exceeded the petitioner's turnover. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned notices and orders and requested rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act, along with an opportunity for rehearing under Section 75(4).

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notices and orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, demanding tax for the period April 2019 to March 2020, are erroneous due to alleged non-capturing of GSTR-3B entries and reverse charge mechanism payments? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 73 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demands were erroneous because the tax authorities failed to account for correctly reflected GSTR-3B entries and taxes paid under the reverse charge mechanism. This led to inflated demands, exceeding the petitioner's actual turnover. The petitioner prayed for relief under Section 161 of the GST Act for rectification. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the State/respondent fairly submitted that if there was a miscalculation or an arithmetical error due to the introduction of an additional numerical figure, the department was open to reconsideration and the matter could be remitted back.