Maithili Agencies vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the case remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits. The Court reasoned that the respondent had not adequately considered the petitioner's reply and the submissions made. The Court directed the respondent to pass orders afresh, taking into account the petitioner's reply dated November 21, 2023 (ARN: ZD331123131572Y). The petitioner was also directed to produce the required invoices and documents as per CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST. The impugned order was to be treated as a corrigendum to the original show cause notice. The Court set a timeline for the petitioner to file a detailed reply (45 days from receipt of order) and for the respondent to pass fresh orders (45 days thereafter).

Facts

The petitioner, Maithili Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II. This order confirmed a show cause notice issued on September 11, 2023, on the grounds that the petitioner failed to produce invoices as required by CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated December 27, 2022. The petitioner contended that there were no discrepancies between the tax paid by their supplier and the input tax availed by them, and that all information was declared in their GSTR-09 return. The respondent argued that the writ petition lacked merit and that the petitioner had an alternate remedy. The respondent also pointed out a discrepancy related to the belated filing of GSTR-01 by the supplier.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for failure to consider the petitioner's reply and for not addressing the alleged discrepancies between supplier tax payment and petitioner's input tax credit, contrary to the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that there were no discrepancies between the tax paid by the supplier and the input tax availed by them. They also submitted that all necessary information was declared in their GSTR-09 return. They relied on their reply filed on November 21, 2023. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, citing the petitioner's failure to produce invoices as per the CBIC circular. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy and highlighted a discrepancy related to the belated filing of GSTR-01 by the supplier.