Top Stories 75% Disputed GST already Paid: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Explain Discrepancies between Form GSTR-1 and 3B [Read Order] Considering the peculiar facts that the petitioner has already paid 75% of the disputed tax, the court viewed that the petitioner can have an additional opportunity to explain the discrepancies By Navasree A.M – On November 14, 2024 1:42 pm – 2 mins read The Madras High Court granted an opportunity to explain the discrepancies between the form GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B as 75% disputed Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) has already been paid.

Shri Yamuna, the petitioner is engaged in the business of Catering and Guest House accommodation services. During the period it has filed its appropriate returns. However, during the scrutiny for the tax period 2018-19, it was found that there were discrepancies between Form GSTR01 and GSTR-3B. Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here A notice was issued under DRC-01 However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor paid the tax amount. Thus, the impugned orders passed. The counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.

It was also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that they have already remitted more than 75% of the disputed tax and they may be granted an opportunity before the adjudicating authority to present his objections. The petitioner a recent judgment of the madras high court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise where the court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 25% of the disputed taxes. Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, considering the peculiar facts that the petitioner has already paid the 75% of the disputed tax, viewed that the petitioner can have an additional opportunity to explain the discrepancies. Thus, the court set aside the contested orders. Further directed to treat the order as SCN and file proper reply within 2 weeks. The bank attachment was lifted.