AP Studio Enterprises Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

An order dated 29.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023, to which he replied on 16.10.2023, stating that the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A was due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier in respect of one invoice. The petitioner explains that he was unable to upload the reply on the portal, and the order impugned herein was issued in the said facts and circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the aforementioned reply and also to the certificate obtained from the supplier and the Chartered Accountant of the supplier. He also submits that a rectification petition was filed by enclosing all these documents, but the same was recently rejected. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the respondent. With reference to the impugned order, he submits that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand and failed to submit a reply through the GST portal. The petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 31.10.2023 from Fivestar Impex India Private Limited, stating that the supply was made under invoice dated 01.11.2017. A certificate from Prabhakaran & Associates, Chartered Accountant, is also on record. This certificate provides the details of the invoice dated 01.11.2017 for a total value of Rs. 18,82,000/-. An e-mail dated 18.10.2023 is also on record. These documents were not taken into account while issuing the impugned order. The petitioner contends that these documents, which substantiate the reasons for the discrepancy and confirm the belated filing by the supplier, should have been considered before the issuance of the impugned order. The failure to consider these documents and the circumstances surrounding the inability to upload the reply on the GST portal have resulted in the issuance of an order that the petitioner believes is unjust and calls for interference. The petitioner argues that he acted in good faith and provided all necessary documentation to clarify the discrepancy caused by the supplier’s delay. The rejection of the rectification petition despite the submission of these documents further exacerbates the petitioner’s situation, prompting the current challenge to the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the petitioner’s inability to upload the reply on the portal was due to technical issues beyond his control and that he promptly responded to the show cause notice with all relevant documents. The petitioner seeks a reevaluation of the impugned order, taking into account the certificates from Fivestar Impex India Private Limited and Prabhakaran & Associates, as well as the e-mail correspondence that corroborates the petitioner’s explanation for the discrepancy. The learned Additional Government Pleader’s argument that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand is acknowledged, but the petitioner insists that the opportunity was compromised by the technical difficulties encountered in uploading the reply. The petitioner urges the court to consider the merits of the certificates and the rectification petition, which provide a clear and justifiable reason for the discrepancy, and to set aside the impugned order in light of the evidence presented. The petitioner’s appeal underscores the need for a fair and thorough consideration of all relevant documents and circumstances before the issuance of such orders, particularly when technical issues impede the ability to comply with procedural requirements. The resolution of this writ petition will have significant implications for the petitioner’s tax liabilities and the administrative procedures within the GST framework, highlighting the importance of addressing technical and procedural challenges in tax compliance and dispute resolution processes.