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>Tax Assessment Challenged After Voluntary Payment Without Responding to Show Cause Notice or Attending Hearing</h1> <h3>Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner Of Delhi (Goods And Service Tax) & Anr.</h3> The HC addressed a writ petition filed due to the non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged a tax, interest, and penalty ... Right to respond to the show cause notice - non-availment of opportunity of a personal hearing which was granted - HELD THAT:- The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the fact that the only reason he has been called upon to pay the aforementioned amount by way of tax, interest and penalty is on account of purported discrepancy in the E-Way Bill and the “goods in movement order”. Mr Satyakam says that he will examine the record, and, accordingly, respond to the query raised by the Court on the next date of hearing - List the matter on 27.07.2022. Issues:1. Functioning of the Appellate Tribunal2. Respondent's contention on petitioner's response to show cause notice3. Appellate proceedings before Special Commissioner4. Grounds for filing the writ petition5. Alleged discrepancy in E-Way Bill and goods in movement orderAnalysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of the non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal, which led to the filing of the writ petition. The court notes that the petitioner resorted to the writ petition due to the Appellate Tribunal's inoperability, highlighting the importance of the Tribunal's functioning in the adjudication process.2. The respondent contends that the petitioner voluntarily chose to deposit the demanded amount instead of responding to the show cause notice. Additionally, it is mentioned that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of a personal hearing. This raises questions about the petitioner's actions and decisions in response to the notice.3. The judgment discusses the petitioner's unsuccessful appeal before the Special Commissioner-I, Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi, which did not yield any favorable outcome. This aspect underscores the petitioner's efforts to seek redressal through the appellate process before resorting to the writ petition.4. The grounds for filing the writ petition are examined, indicating that the petitioner is aggrieved by being required to pay the tax, interest, and penalty due to an alleged discrepancy in the E-Way Bill and the goods in movement order. This discrepancy serves as a pivotal issue prompting the petitioner to approach the court for relief.5. The respondent's assurance to examine the record and provide a response to the court's query on the next hearing date signifies an ongoing engagement with the case. The court lists the matter for further proceedings on a specified date, ensuring continued scrutiny and resolution of the issues raised in the petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
