• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Madras HC: Petitioner Receives Opportunity Due to GSTR-1 Turnover Reporting Error

Madras HC's Order In Case of Parthasarathy Narasimhan Vs Deputy Commercial/State Tax Officer

Madras High Court in a recent judgment in the case of Parthasarathy Narasimhan vs. Deputy Commercial/State Tax Officer stresses an influential issue arising from an error in GSTR-1 turnover reporting. The applicant challenged an assessment order that charged a substantial tax obligation, claiming that the reported turnover was erroneously high as of inadvertent error.

The applicant, a registered entity under GST enactments, found that their turnover was incorrectly reported in the GSTR-1 return as Rs. 9,22,89,895/- rather than Rs. 92,28,895/-. The same reporting error directed to a hefty tax obligation of Rs. 1,48,20,834. Even after the applicant’s representation describing the error and providing evidence reinforcing the correct turnover, without giving a chance for contestation, the authorities moved with the assessment order.

The Madras High Court answered noting the petition of the applicant and the substantial discrepancy between the reported and actual turnover figures. The court discovered merit in the argument of the applicant that the whole tax obligation emerged as inaccurate reporting in the GSTR-1 return. The court then quashed the assessment order and remanded the case for reconsideration, outlining the importance of furnishing the applicant a fair chance to contest the tax demand.

Read Also: Common Errors in GSTR 1 JSON on GST Portal with Solutions

Madras High Court judgment in Parthasarathy Narasimhan vs. Deputy Commercial/State Tax Officer acts as a reminder of the effects of errors in GST reporting. The same case beyond easing the mistakes shows the requirement for the authorities to afford the assessees the opportunity to show their matter and ease the difference before levying substantial tax obligations.

Case TitleParthasarathy Narasimhan Vs Deputy Commercial/State Tax Officer
CitationW.P.No.8798 of 2024, and W.M.P.Nos.9798 & 9800 of 2024
Date1.04.2024
For PetitionerMs. N. V. Lakshmi, Mr. N. V. Balaji
For RespondentMr. T.N. C. Kaushik
Madras High CourtRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Current GST Due Dates