Case Reference
M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(T) No. 25 of 2025
Judgment Date: 20.01.2025
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit / GST Assessment – comparison of GSTR-3B with E-way bill data
Relevant Sections: Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017; Rule 99 of CGST/JGST Rules
Facts (Para 2–3)
The petitioner, M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., challenged the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the JGST Act for FY 2019-20. The proceedings were initiated through ASMT-10 notice under Rule 99, alleging mismatch between taxes declared in GSTR-3B and e-way bill data. The petitioner submitted a reply on 24.05.2024, specifically contending that the comparison was technically flawed as the data sources were distinct and non-comparable. Detailed reasons were provided for why such reconciliation was invalid.
Questions/Dispute (Para 3–4)
The issue before the Court was whether the assessing authority could brush aside the petitioner’s reply without dealing with the specific objections regarding the methodology of comparing GSTR-3B with e-way bill records, and whether such non-consideration vitiated the assessment order under Section 73.
Observations (Para 4–5)
The Court noted that the impugned order contained no reference to the petitioner’s contentions and merely recorded that the reply was “not satisfactory.” The Court emphasized that the purpose of issuing ASMT-10 is to invite a reply and then apply judicial mind to such reply before concluding. Failure to deal with specific objections amounted to a denial of natural justice. The assessing authority was bound to disclose the breakup of demand computation and to give a reasoned finding on the taxpayer’s explanation.
Judgment (Para 6–7)
The High Court set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 and remitted the matter back to the State Tax Officer. The officer was directed to:
-
Furnish to the petitioner within two weeks the breakup and basis of difference computed.
-
Allow the petitioner four weeks thereafter to submit a reply.
-
Grant personal hearing.
-
Pass a reasoned, speaking order after considering the reply.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Ratio/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Present case only – no external precedents cited | Jharkhand High Court | Assessment order set aside for failure to consider taxpayer’s reply and provide breakup of computation. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical takeaway)
For industry, this case reinforces that mere mismatch notices between GSTR-3B and e-way bills cannot be sustained without proper computation and reasoning. Taxpayers must be given detailed breakup of alleged differences, their objections must be addressed, and a personal hearing must be provided. Orders passed mechanically, without dealing with replies, are liable to be struck down.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
