TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>CGST s.73 tax demand adjudication challenged for lack of proper hearing; orders set aside and remanded for fresh decision</h1> Writ petitions challenging orders passed under s.73 of the CGST Act, 2017 raised the dominant issue of whether the impugned adjudication could be ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in each of the writ petitions set aside and the matters remanded back to the file of respondent No.1 for considering the same afresh and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Needless to say, respondent No.1 shall provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter shall pass the necessary orders. Let the fresh orders on remand be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed. In the case before the Telangana High Court, the petitioners challenged orders issued by respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel S. Ravi, argued that they could not appeal these orders due to the absence of a Commissioner (Appeals), as stipulated by Rule 109A of the CGST Rules. They also contended that the orders were made without examining their books of accounts, particularly regarding the reversal of input tax credit.The respondents, represented by Standing Counsel L. Venkateswar Rao, acknowledged the absence of an appellate authority and agreed that the assessing authority would re-examine the petitioners' books of accounts. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration, ensuring an adequate opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. The court directed that new orders be issued within six weeks from the date of receiving the court's order. All writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
