Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Reply filed by Assessee be taken into consideration while passing Impugned Order

Bimal jain
Court Rules Revenue Department Must Consider Taxpayer Replies in CGST Act Assessment Orders The Madras High Court ruled in favor of a petitioner against the Revenue Department, which had issued an assessment order without considering the petitioner's reply to a tax liability notice under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found that the Revenue Department failed to provide a detailed, reasoned order addressing the petitioner's objections, violating legal requirements. Consequently, the court set aside the initial order and instructed the Revenue Department to issue a new, comprehensive order that incorporates the petitioner's responses. This decision emphasizes the necessity for authorities to consider taxpayer submissions in assessment proceedings. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. THE CHENNAI SILKS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , TIRUPUR SOUTH ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, TIRUPUR - 2023 (11) TMI 205 - MADRAS HIGH COURTallowed the Writ Petition and held that the Revenue Department has erred in passing the Assessment order without taking into consideration the reply filed by the assessee, thereby setting aside the Impugned Assessment Order and directing the Revenue Department to pass a detailed order after taking into consideration the reply filed by the Petitioner.

Facts:

M/s. Chennai Silks (“the Petitioner”) was issued an intimation in Form DRC-01A dated November 23, 2021, by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) with respect to ascertained tax liability under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”) for which the reply dated January 17, 2022 and February 02, 2022 (“the Reply”) was filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Show Cause Notice dated April 17, 2023, was issued and the date was fixed for personal hearing on which the statement of replies was recorded by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent passed an order dated July 04, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) against the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court on the ground that the Respondent has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the Petitioner and has passed a non-speaking order.

Issue:

Whether the Revenue Department erred in passing the Assessment order without taking into consideration the reply filed by the Assessee?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case M/S. THE CHENNAI SILKS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , TIRUPUR SOUTH ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, TIRUPUR - 2023 (11) TMI 205 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held as under:

  • Observed that, though the Appellate Authority has the power of Assessing Officer to make an assessment by providing opportunity for personal hearing and by taking reply into consideration, however, the said order passed cannot be equated with the order passed by the Assessing Officer who would pass the order after taking into consideration the reply/objection and evidence provided by the Petitioner pursuant to the SCN. Thereby, the Petitioner would lose the opinion of the Assessing Officer, to which the Petitioner is legally entitled under the provisions of law.
  • Noted that, once the Assessee has filed the reply/objections to the SCN issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the speaking order providing reasons for rejection of the reply/objections raised by the Assessee. It would cause prejudice to the Assessee and huge loss to the revenue if cryptic orders are passed without taking into consideration the queries/contentions of the Assessee.
  • Held that, the Impugned Order is set aside and directed the Respondent Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order after taking into consideration the reply filed by the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles