Denial of ITC Justified as Assessee Claimed Higher Amount in GSTR-3B Than Available in GSTR-2A; HC Dismissed Writ

Case Details: Laxmi Telecom vs. State of U.P. - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 550 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Vikas Budhwar, J.
• Ajay Kumar Yadav & Vijay Maurya for the Petitioner.
• Manoj Kumar Kushwaha for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received a SCN, pointing out discrepancies in ITC between the amounts claimed in GSTR-3B and those reflected in GSTR-2A/2B. The authority alleged a discrepancy of Rs. 7.7 lakh, while the petitioner claimed the actual difference was only Rs. 74,000. The petitioner responded to the notice with supporting documents, and part of their explanation was accepted. However, the authority still issued a demand for Rs. 7,41,218. The petitioner contended that the SCN was invalid because it did not include the necessary supporting documents and there was a procedural irregularity, as the final order was issued on August 27, 2024, instead of the scheduled hearing date of August 24, 2024.

The department contended that the petitioner’s response was fully considered, and part of their claim was accepted. Furthermore, the petitioner could challenge the order through the statutory appeal process, making the writ petition unnecessary.

High Court Held

The High Court noted that the lack of supporting documents with the SCN was not a valid objection since the petitioner had submitted responses without raising this issue. Additionally, the difference in dates between the hearing and the final order did not cause any significant prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could pursue the matter through the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal.

List of Cases Referred to

• Shantanu Prakash v. State Bank of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1730 of 2024 (para 3).