SGST High Court Cases

GST - proceedings under Section 130(2) of the CGST Act – demand of tax and levy of penalty on ground of concealed turnover - discrepancy in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A – validity of impugned order when appellate authority has not denied the issuance of the invoice and the e-way bills uploaded against subject transactions – HELD - When the respondents have not denied the issuance of the invoice and the e-way bills uploaded against subject transactions it has to be assumed that the invoice and the e-way bills had been issued - Once the respondent admits that the invoice and the e-way bills had been issued in regular course, it is difficult to imagine how the appeal authority could have reached a conclusion that the goods sold or purchased against those invoices were unaccounted for. The invoice is primary evidence of the transaction. Unless the revenue authority disputes its genuineness, it cannot be lightly overlooked - The alleged discrepancy in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A referred to by the assessing authority did not even find favour with the appeal authority, inasmuch as, it did not refer to the same in the impugned order - Even otherwise, mere existence of some discrepancies may not led the revenue authority to the conclusion that tax had been evaded or the transaction had not been disclosed. To hold that there was discrepancy in the account is different and lighter charge than to hold that the assessee had not disclosed or concealed part of its turnover - once the revenue authority accepted that the transaction were covered by regular invoices and those details had been uploaded on the web portal by issuing e-way bills, merely because there may have been existed certain discrepancies, the transaction cannot be said to be one falling under the category of undisclosed turnover – the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page