The authority's assessment is upheld when insufficient documentary evidence is presented to substantiate claims.

PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Reference No.ZD330824222706E/2019-20 DATED 24.08.2024 passed by the Respondent and the consequential rejection order bearing Reference No:ZD330225012374X/2019-20 DATED 03.02.2025 passed by the Respondent, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Bhuvanesh For Respondent(s): Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader (Tax)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 and also the consequential rejection order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2019-20, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner proprietorship concern is engaged in the business of Trading of building materials and allied and is registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act , 2017. During the relevant period 2019-20, the petitioner had filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. However, on examination of the information furnished in the return under various heads and also the information furnished by the petitioner in GSTR-01, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and other records, the following discrepancies were noticed:

(i) Under declaration of output tax (ii) Excess claim of ITC

3. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 was issued to the petitioner on 21.05.2025, for which, the petitioner had submitted its reply on 20.06.2024 along with documentary evidence to support their claim. However, the respondent/assessing authority, finding that the petitioner filed their reply on 20.06.2024 without supporting documents to substantiate their claims, passed the order dated 24.08.2024, confirming the proposal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed rectification application along with relevant documents under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, however, the respondent Authority has simply rejected the application for rectification on

03.02.2025 without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing.

3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the year 2018-19, while filing returns in GSTR-1, the petitioner inadvertently reported double the time for one particular outward supply, however, the same was rectified in GSTR-3 and subsequently, amendment was made in GSTR-1 in the month of April 2019 for the aforesaid outward supply. Though this aspect was explained in the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Authority failed to consider the same. Further, he would submit that the tax liability comparison statement was also enclosed in the reply and the same was not looked into by the Assessing Officer while passing the order. The said orders of the respondent/Assessing Authority are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that in the present case, while filing returns in GSTR-1 for the month of March, the petitioner has made double entries. Though the petitioner addressed before this Court, that the petitioner has made correction in GSTR-3 in the month of March 2019 and subsequently in GSTR-1 in the month of April 2019, no such document was filed before the respondent authority. Under these circumstances, the tax liability comparison statement was rejected on the whole, since it is not supported by the documentary evidence.

Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, it appears that during the ye