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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Deceased Staff Communication Invalidates Proceedings, Petitioner Granted Appeal Rights Within 30 Days</h1> <h3>M/s. Samadhu Medicals Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer / The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram – I Assessment Circle, Villupuram</h3> M/s. Samadhu Medicals Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer / The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram – I Assessment Circle, Villupuram - 2024 (81) G. ... Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the initiation of impugned proceedings due to input mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A statement, communication regarding the proceedings sent to deceased staff members, petitioner's lack of awareness leading to bank account attachment, and the remedy available to the petitioner to appeal before the Appellate Authority.Initiation of Impugned Proceedings:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings dated 12.04.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020 under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017. The proceedings were initiated due to an input mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A statement. The petitioner claimed that communications were sent to a deceased staff member's mobile number and email address, resulting in the petitioner's lack of awareness of the proceedings until the bank account was attached.Contentions of the Parties:The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned proceedings as communications were directed to deceased individuals responsible for filing returns. On the other hand, the Government Advocate (Tax) contended that communication was sent to the contact details provided by the petitioner, and it was the petitioner's responsibility to engage another accountant after the demise of the previous ones. The Government Advocate suggested that the petitioner should appeal before the Appellate Authority if aggrieved by the impugned orders.Court's Decision:After considering the submissions, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of awareness due to the demise of staff members responsible for filing returns. The petitioner expressed satisfaction if granted liberty to appeal before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Court directed the authorities to entertain the appeal without insisting on the limitation aspect and to dispose of it after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.