High Court directed to decide the matter by way of a reasoned order where the electronic credit ledger was blocked citing a mismatch in the Input Tax Credit claimed in GSTR-3B and that appearing in GSTR-2A.
High COurt held that writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to Assistant Commissioner Palam Division CGST Delhi South, who is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative. Till the said representation is decided by Assistant Commissioner Palam Division CGST Delhi South, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the impugned notice dated 28th January, 2020.
Source Taxguru
Latest Posts in "India"
- India’s E-Invoicing Rules: Scope, Formats, Penalties, and Compliance Under the GST Framework
- Continuous Supply of Services Under GST: Legal Criteria Versus Commercial Practice Explained
- Tripura HC: ITC Cannot Be Denied to Bona Fide Purchaser for Supplier’s Tax Default
- Ready-to-Drink Non-Alcoholic Beverages Like Mojito to Attract 40% GST, Rules WB AAR
- Bombay HC: Assignment of Long-Term Industrial Leasehold Rights Not Taxable as ‘Supply’ Under GST
