IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 25 of 2025 ----- M/s. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., a limited company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, registered under Goods and Services Tax Laws vide Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (‘GSTIN’) 20AABCE9378F1ZQ and inter alia having its registered office at Tilakraidih, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. K G Ashram, Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 826001, through it’s Authorized Signatory Nitin Nagda, S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Nagda, Age about 57 years R/o 168 Vidhya Nagar Behind INOX Cinema P.O. G.P.O., Radio Colony, P.S. Bhanwar Kuwa District-Indore (Madhya Pradesh)-452001. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, P.O North Delhi and P.S North Delhi, New Delhi-110001 2. State of Jharkhand, serviced through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Ranchi Secretariat, having its office at Dhurwa P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa Jharkhand- 834004. 3. Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, Ground Floor, Vanijyakar Bhawan, Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Hirapur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. Kasturba Nagar, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826 001. 4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, Ground Floor, Vanijyakar Bhawan, Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Hirapur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Kasturba Nagar. Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826 001. 5. State Tax Officer, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, Ground Floor, Vanijyakar Bhawan, Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Hirapur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Kasturba Nagar, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826 001 … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Ostwal, Adv Mr. Pratyush Kr. Jha, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.I ------ 02/20.01.2025 Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the 5th respondent under section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019-20. 3. No doubt the 5th respondent had issued ASMT-10 under Rule 99 to which there was a reply submitted on 24.05.2024 (Annexure-4). In the reply the petitioner specifically raised a plea that it has not understood the basis of comparing taxes paid in GSTR3B with e-way bill data as technically the base information of both the statements is different. It is also contended that comparison of GSTR3B and e-way bill, document, taxes is not possible for certain reasons enumerated therein. 4. In the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent there is no reference to this contention raised by the petitioner at all and it is simply stated that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. 5. Since the purpose of issuing ASMT-10 is to invite a reply and then consider the said reply. We fail to understand why the 5th respondent did not aver to the contention raised in the reply filed by the petitioner and brushed it aside by simply saying it is not satisfactory. 6. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 31.08.2024 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 5th respondent who shall furnish to the petitioner the basis of making the demand i.e. breakup as to how the difference amount was arrived at; such information be furnished within two weeks from today; petitioner is permitted to file a reply thereto within four weeks from the date of furnishing of the said information by the 5th respondent; personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner; and then a reasoned order be passed after considering the reply of the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the same stands allowed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/Amardeep