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 Demand Order Overturned: Procedural Fairness Prevails, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Respond and Explain Circumstances</h1> <h3>RAMKRISHNA ROADWAYS Versus STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS</h3> The HC allowed the writ petition challenging a tax demand order for CGST and SGST. The court found the original order invalid due to lack of natural ... Levy of CGST and SGST with interest and penalty - demand on the ground that the petitioner had not declared its Godown as an additional place of business - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 is liable to be set aside since, the same was not issued on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, the State-respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice upon the petitioner herein. On receipt of the same, the petitioner shall submit his explanation in accordance with the law. Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to tax demand order for CGST and SGST due to failure to declare godown as an additional place of business.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order by the Superintendent of Taxes demanding payment of Rs.3,14,052.80 for CGST and SGST, citing the failure to declare a godown as an additional place of business. The petitioner argued that the order was issued without prior notice and contended that the godown was declared as an additional place of business, even though the GST form did not have a specific column for a godown. The State-respondent, represented by the Addl. G.A., opposed the petition, claiming it lacked merit and did not demonstrate any violation of legal or statutory rights.Upon hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Court found that the order dated 09.03.2021 was invalid as it was issued without following the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order but allowed the State-respondents to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to provide an explanation upon receiving the new notice in compliance with the law. The Court granted the writ petition, allowing it and disposing of the matter accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
