Telangana High Court Permits GST Order Rectification Where GSTR-3B and GSTR-8 Turnover Discrepancy Stemmed from Portal Technical Failures
Case Overview
Case Name: New Bombay Fruit Juice and Chat Bhandar Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Telangana High Court)
Court: Telangana High Court
Subject Matter: Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2025 | Tax Period: April 2020 to March 2021
Background and Context
This case arose from an Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Proper Officer concerning the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner, New Bombay Fruit Juice and Chat Bhandar, was an assessee operating through e-commerce platforms and found itself on the receiving end of an adverse order that, according to its submissions, failed to account for critical technical realities surrounding the GST Portal during the relevant assessment period.
At the heart of the dispute was a discrepancy in reported turnover — specifically, the variation between figures reflected in GSTR-3B and those appearing in GSTR-8. The petitioner's position was straightforward: this mismatch was not the result of any suppression or misreporting by the assessee, but rather a direct consequence of technical issues that persisted on the GST Portal during the concerned period.
The Core Legal Issue
Turnover Variation Between GSTR-3B and GSTR-8
For assessees engaged in e-commerce transactions, two critical return filings come into play:
- GSTR-3B: The consolidated monthly self-declaration return filed by the registered assessee reflecting outward supplies, input tax credit claimed, and tax paid.
- GSTR-8: The statement of Tax Collected at Source (TCS) filed by the e-commerce operator reflecting supplies made through its platform on behalf of suppliers.
When figures in these two returns diverge, tax authorities may treat the discrepancy as an indicator of suppressed turnover or underpayment of tax. In this case, however, the petitioner contended that the variation was entirely attributable to portal-level technical failures — a position that was reportedly corroborated by the e-commerce operators themselves, who had categorically communicated the existence of such technical issues to the relevant authorities.
The petitioner's specific grievance was that the Proper Officer, while passing the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2025, had not adequately examined and verified the records, nor taken into account the clarifications furnished regarding Tax Collected at Source (TCS) for the period April 2020 to March 2021.