M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles LTD. Through Its Authorised Signatory, Nitin Nagda vs. Union Of INDIA Represented Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue

Facts

M/s. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (5th respondent) under Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner had previously submitted a reply to a notice issued under Rule 99 (ASMT-10), raising a specific contention that comparing taxes paid in GSTR3B with e-way bill data was technically not possible due to differences in base information. The impugned order, however, did not address this contention, merely stating that the petitioner's reply was unsatisfactory. The High Court noted that the purpose of ASMT-10 is to elicit a reply and consider it, which the 5th respondent failed to do.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 was unsustainable. The Court found that the State Tax Officer (5th respondent) failed to consider the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in their reply to the ASMT-10 notice. The petitioner had raised a valid technical objection regarding the comparison of GSTR3B data with e-way bill data, arguing that the underlying information was different and thus the comparison was not feasible. The Court emphasized that the purpose of issuing ASMT-10 is to invite a reply and then consider it. By simply stating that the reply was unsatisfactory without addressing the petitioner's specific technical grounds, the 5th respondent acted contrary to the established procedure. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. The 5th respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with the basis for the demand, including a breakup of how the difference amount was arrived at, within two weeks. The petitioner would then have four weeks to file a reply, followed by a personal hearing, and a reasoned order would be passed thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017, is sustainable in law, given that it failed to address the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in response to the ASMT-10 notice regarding the comparison of GSTR3B data with e-way bill data? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the comparison of GSTR3B returns with e-way bill data was technically flawed as the base information for both statements is different, and therefore, such a comparison for tax calculation purposes was not possible. They contended that the impugned order failed to consider this crucial point raised in their reply. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. It only notes that the 5th respondent found the petitioner's reply unsatisfactory.