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

Proceedings are to be re-adjudicated when no detailed order is uploaded by Revenue Department

Bimal jain
Court Orders Re-adjudication if Revenue Dept. Fails to Upload Detailed Order; Company Allowed Additional Replies in 30 Days The Madras High Court ruled that proceedings must be re-adjudicated if the Revenue Department fails to upload a detailed order. In the case involving a company manufacturing generating sets, discrepancies were found during an audit, leading to a summary order issued without a detailed explanation. The company contested this, and the court set aside the order, remanding the case for re-adjudication. The court emphasized the need for a detailed order and allowed the company to submit additional replies within 30 days. The Revenue Department is directed to provide a personal hearing and adjudicate based on merit and law. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. OJUS POWER & TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - M. GUNASEKARAN VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2023 (11) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]set aside the Impugned Summary Order as no detailed order was uploaded on the portal and remitted back the matter for re-adjudication.

Facts:

Ojus Power & Technologies (P.) Ltd (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the manufacturing of generating sets that produce electricity. Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) conducted audit at the business premises of the Petitioner wherein certain discrepancies were found. The Respondent issued the GST Form DRC-01A for Financial Year 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 (“FY”) under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) for intimation of tax payable. The Respondent pursuant to Reply filed, issued a Summary Show Cause Notice dated August 23, 2022, (“the SCN”). Thereafter, the Summary Order was issued dated September 27, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”) was issued against the Petitioner. 

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition contending that only the no detailed order was not uploaded by the Respondent.

Issue:

Whether Proceedings are to be re-adjudicated when no detailed order is uploaded by Revenue Department?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. OJUS POWER & TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - M. GUNASEKARAN VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2023 (11) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held under:

  • Opined that, the detailed order dated September 27, 2022 was signed by the Respondent Authorities only on April 27, 2023.
  • Held that, the Impugned Order is set-aside and remitted the matter back to the Respondent authorities for re-adjudication.
  • Further Held that, Petitioner is permitted to file reply, if any, in addition to the reply filed earlier by the petitioner in Form GST DRC-01A within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • Directed that, the Respondent should grant the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass orders on merit and in accordance with the law.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

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