Page 133 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SRI KALI KRISHNA INDUSTRIES 379
10. During the course of appeal hearings, the A.R. has appeared and re-
iterated the contentions set-forth in the grounds of appeal.
11. The appellant explained that due to unknown problems in GSTN
network software, though they have attempted to file GSTR-3B return for the
month of October, 2017, it was automatically conceived ‘NIL’ return and they
could not file any return for that month afterwards since no pending return
shown in the GSTN login.
12. The appellant further submitted that after October, 2017, they have
migrated to composition scheme and paid the actual tax liability for the month of
October, 2017 as shown below;

Purchase Taxable @ 18% 88,000 7,920 7,920 15,840
Purchase Taxable @ 28% 33,000 4,620 4,620 9,240
TOTAL 1,21,000 12,540 12,540 25,080

Tax liability 38,647
Less: ITC eligible 25,080
GST payable 13,567
GST paid 13,568

13. The appellant contended that through the above computation and
procedure, they have discharged the net tax liability of Rs. 13,568/- before issu-
ing any show cause notice by the Department. But, without appraising these
facts, the AA has unilaterally determined under declared tax merely basing on
mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.
14. The appellant finally pleaded that since they have discharged the li-
able tax for the month of October, 2017, the supposed under declared tax arrived
through mismatch reports, is not factual and requested to set aside such levy by
annulling the assessment order and prayed for appeal orders in their favour.
Issues for Adjudication :
(1) Whether the appellant contention that they have discharged the ac-
tual net tax liability for the month of October, 2017, hence the sup-
pression of tax arrived through mismatch report is not factual and
correct, has been substantiated with logical explanation and de-
pendable evidence or not?
Analysis :
15. Perused the grounds of appeal along with assessment order passed
by the A.A., and after thorough verification of records, the findings of the appel-
late authority are stated below;
16. The primary explanation of the appellant is that due to certain
software error though they have attempted for filing return of the month of Oc-
tober, 2017, but the system has conceived Nil return, as such they could not file
return for that month. As per the computation of actual accounts, the gross tax
liability for the month of October, 2017, was admitted by the appellant for Rs.
38,647/- the same as determined by the A.A. However, the appellant explained
that after adjusting eligible ITC of Rs. 25,080/-, they have paid the remaining tax
liability of Rs. 13,568/- on 28-12-2017. This fact could not be verified by the as-
sessing authority, because the AA has not correctly scrutinized the appellant con-
tentions and one sidedly construed the under declared tax even though the ap-
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  133