Draft Reply For DRC 01

Dated :
To,
The GST Officer,
Ward – ,
Delhi GST,
T&T Building,
Delhi.
Dear Sir,
IN THE MATTER OF
GSTIN – 07
Reg : REPLY OF DRC – 01 DT.
That the tax payer wants to submit as under :-
1. That the DRC-01 issued was not containing any digital signature of the proper
officer. Therefore, the above notice is not sustainable in the eyes of Law and
such SCN to be considered as invalid.
 That in the matter of Marg ERP Ltd vs CGST arising out of W.P.C.
872/2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “an unsigned
notice/order cannot be considered as an order and hence cannot
be sustained.”
2. That the DIN (Document Identification Number) entered by your good-self is
incorrect and was not verified and authenticated at GST Portal. Therefore, in
absence of correct DIN, the above Show Cause Notice(SCN) is null and void.
3. That in the above said notice, the date of Personal Hearing is too early and
how it can be done before the submission of reply of the taxpayer which
shows that the absence of application of mind by the proper officer while
issuing the SCN to the tax payer.
4. That various discrepancies were noticed by your good-self are :-
4.1 Unpaid Tax Liability for Mismatch Between GSTR-1 & 3B.
That being the first year of implementation of new GST Law, the tax
payer and his staff was not well educated and well verse with the new
system of GST. Therefore, certain additional entries were fed in the
system wrongly due to clerical mistake and hence, mismatch arises.
Therefore, you are requested to please do not consider the following
entries in GSTR-1 :-
Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value
4.2 Excess ITC Claimed in Form 3B as compared to GSTR 2A

That the no excess ITC was availed by the tax payer in his returns. The
taxpayer had claimed ITC only for which he is in possession of goods,
invoice, proof of bank payments and actual movement of goods was
made and all transactions are absolutely genuine excluding ineligible
ITC. However, all the sellers exist at their business premises and can
confirm the transaction also. Therefore, you are requested to please
consider the following transactions and allow the ITC to the taxpayer as
all the conditions of Section 16 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 were duly
complied. The same view was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd.
That in the matter of Diya Agencies vs State Tax Officer arising out of
W.P.(C). 29769 of 2023, the Hon’ble Kerela High Court held that “ITC
cannot be denied to the recipient solely on the ground that
transactions are not reflected in GSTR-2A.” However, GSTR-2A is
mere a facilitator and cannot be presumed to be accurate and
complete.
The list of such transactions due to which the mismatch arising is as
follows and all the necessary documents are enclosed for your ready
reference :-
Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value Eway Bill No.
4.3 ITC Claimed from Non Existent dealers

That the purchases from the following dealers were made which exist
at the time of transaction and actual movement of goods was taken
place. Tax payer is in possession of valid invoice, e-way bill, proof of
payment of taxes along with payment of goods from bank to the
supplier. All the returns of the supplier were also filed as per your GST
Portal and are in records of the GST Portal. Therefore, compliance of
Section 16 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 was completely done by the
tax payer.
Further, it is the duty of the supplier to pay the taxes collected as
per the mechanism drawn by Central Government of India otherwise it
will tantamount to double taxation.
However, it is not possible to verify by the tax payer that whether
the supplier had paid the tax or not or the supplier would have adjusted
from his ITC because it is the duty of the administrator (i.e.
Government) and not the bonafide purchaser and as per GST portal,
the tax payer can verify only that the supplier had filed his GSTR-3B or
not, which was duly filed in this case. It is also pertinent to note that
your good-self has not bring any material contrary to Law and
therefore, no adverse inference may be called for.
Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value E-way Bill
Copy of the above said invoices, e-way bill along with payment of proof
is enclosed for your ready reference.
That in the matter of Gargo Traders vs Joint Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes arising out of W.P.C. 1009 of 2022, the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court held that “a recipient of goods/services
cannot be denied ITC if supplier becomes non-existent or their
registration was cancelled retrospectively.”

The same view was also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta
in the matter of LGW Industries Ltd vs Union of India. W.P.C 23512 of
2019.
5. That the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1978) 115
ITR 725 has observed that the Income-tax Act being an all India statute,
uniformity in the construction of its statutory provisions is eminently desirable
and the considered opinion of any other High Court should be followed unless
there are overriding reasons for taking a divergent view. Therefore, GST is also
an All India Statute and Principle of uniformity should be followed.
Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the tax payer
is ready to fully co-operate with you and request you to quash the notice and delete
the proposed demand in full.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
For ……………
Tax Payer.
Prepared By :-
Naman Gupta
B.com(Hons), FCA, CCA,
I.D.(MCA), LLB
9891468846
namangupta2003@gmail.com

Draft Reply For DRC 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Reply For DRC 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Reply For DRC 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dated :

That the tax payer wants to submit as under :-

such SCN to be considered as invalid.

notice/order cannot be considered as an order and hence cannot

2. That the DIN (Document Identification Number) entered by your good-self is

issuing the SCN to the tax payer.

4. That various discrepancies were noticed by your good-self are :-

system of GST. Therefore, certain additional entries were fed in the

system wrongly due to clerical mistake and hence, mismatch arises.

Therefore, you are requested to please do not consider the following

Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value

4.2 Excess ITC Claimed in Form 3B as compared to GSTR 2A

taxpayer had claimed ITC only for which he is in possession of goods,

invoice, proof of bank payments and actual movement of goods was

made and all transactions are absolutely genuine excluding ineligible

confirm the transaction also. Therefore, you are requested to please

in the matter of Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd.

cannot be denied to the recipient solely on the ground that

transactions are not reflected in GSTR-2A.” However, GSTR-2A is

mere a facilitator and cannot be presumed to be accurate and

The list of such transactions due to which the mismatch arising is as

Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value Eway Bill No.

4.3 ITC Claimed from Non Existent dealers

at the time of transaction and actual movement of goods was taken

place. Tax payer is in possession of valid invoice, e-way bill, proof of

payment of taxes along with payment of goods from bank to the

Portal and are in records of the GST Portal. Therefore, compliance of

Section 16 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 was completely done by the

per the mechanism drawn by Central Government of India otherwise it

will tantamount to double taxation.

However, it is not possible to verify by the tax payer that whether

from his ITC because it is the duty of the administrator (i.e.

therefore, no adverse inference may be called for.

Date Bill No. GSTIN Invoice Value E-way Bill

is enclosed for your ready reference.

That in the matter of Gargo Traders vs Joint Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes arising out of W.P.C. 1009 of 2022, the Hon’ble

Calcutta High Court held that “a recipient of goods/services

cannot be denied ITC if supplier becomes non-existent or their

registration was cancelled retrospectively.”

in the matter of LGW Industries Ltd vs Union of India. W.P.C 23512 of

uniformity in the construction of its statutory provisions is eminently desirable

an All India Statute and Principle of uniformity should be followed.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.