TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns decision rejecting petitioner's request for return revision, stresses need for clear reasoning.</h1> <h3>M/s. SREE LEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), KOLLAM</h3> The court set aside the Ext. P4 order rejecting the petitioner's request to revise monthly returns for assessment years 2015-2016 and remanded the matter ... Revision of monthly returns - Initially, on 25. 10. 2016, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) allowed the petitioner to revise the monthly returns from November 2015 to March 2016. But the request concerned the months from April 2015 to March 2016 - revision of return was rejected from the Office of the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. Held that:- The Assistant Commissioner discharges the functions of a quasi judicial authority. And the reasoning is the heart of the adjudication. Here, the Ext. P4 reads more like a fiat. It contains no reasons for rejection - the Ext. P4 is set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Issues:Petitioner's request to revise monthly returns for assessment years 2015-2016 from April 2015 to March 2016. Ext. P4 order rejecting the request without providing reasons.Analysis:The petitioner, an assessee, sought to revise its monthly returns for the assessment years 2015-2016 from April 2015 to March 2016, but the Assistant Commissioner initially allowed revisions only from November 2015 to March 2016. Subsequently, the second respondent issued the Ext. P4 order rejecting the request without providing any reasons for the rejection. The Ext. P4 order was deemed deficient as it lacked the necessary reasoning expected from a quasi-judicial authority. The absence of reasons in the order was highlighted, indicating a lack of proper adjudication.The judgment emphasized the importance of reasoning in adjudicatory processes and noted that the Ext. P4 order appeared more like a directive rather than a reasoned decision. Consequently, the court set aside the Ext. P4 order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It was directed that coercive actions by the department be deferred until the second respondent issues a fresh decision on the petitioner's request. The ruling underscored the fundamental principle that quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear and justifiable reasons for their decisions to ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
