The judgment in Golden Mandir Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) by the Madras High Court related to an assessment order on 29.12.2023, focusing on Discrepancy Nos.1, 2, 10, and 11. The applicant is engaged in textiles and Hyundai Motor Vehicles business and challenged the levying of taxes, penalties, and interest established on differences determined in an audit.
Detailed Analysis:
- Discrepancy No.1 – Non-GST Supplies: The applicant contended that trade discounts from the supplier were incorrectly organized as non-GST supplies. Even after furnishing proof that comprises financial credit notes, the assessing officer levies tax, interest, and penalties. The court witnessed charging was not justifiable, rendering the reexamination of the status of the petitioner as a non-GST supplier.
- Discrepancy No.2 – Mismatch in Returns: The assessing officer considered no difference in the CGST and SGST returns, they alleged a short payment under IGST without specifying before in the SCN. The court considered the same irregular and ordered a new SCN for the appropriate assessment.
- Discrepancy No.10 – Indirect Income: The applicant furnished service tax and GSTR-3B returns to explain disclosed indirect income. Even after the evidence, the assessing officer claimed that no documents were submitted. The court overturned the same finding, highlighting the demand for proper consideration of submitted documents.
- Discrepancy No.11 – Rent for Commercial Purposes: The applicant mentioned that the tax obligations related to the rent were filed for registered and unregistered individuals. However, the assessing officer was unable to ask for the pertinent documents before concluding the non-payment. The court stressed the need for proper verification and provided the applicant a chance to furnish the other documents.
Closure:
The Madras High Court interrupted the assessment order quashing the difference pertinent to the non-GST supplies, mismatched returns, indirect income, and rent payments.
In the tax assessments, the judgment shows the importance of due process and proper documentation. The assessing officer was asked to reexamine the problems and furnish the applicant a fair chance to substantiate their claims in the said duration.
| Case Title | Golden Mandir Retail Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner |
| Case No.: | W.P .N o.4478 of 2024 |
| Date | 23.02.2024 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Mr.R.L.Ramani, Mr.B.Raveendran |
| Counsel For Respondent | Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, AGP (T) |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
