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>Tax Liability Challenge Succeeds: Supporting Documents Lead to Order Quashing and Case Remand for Fresh Consideration</h1> HC quashed an order under GST DRC-01A challenging tax liability. The court found respondent's conclusions unsustainable, as petitioner had submitted ... Disregard to petitioner's reply to the intimation - it is alleged that the petitioner had not submitted documents to establish the movement of goods - HELD THAT:- The reply dated 07.05.2023 of the petitioner is on record. In such reply, the petitioner refuted the liability and enclosed copies of the invoice, weighment slips, e-way bills, ledger copy and payment details relating to the relevant supplies. The petitioner also placed on record the evidence that the said reply was uploaded along with attachments. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 14.06.2023 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by annexing all relevant documents once again. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:The judgment involves the issue of disregarding the petitioner's reply to an intimation, issuance of a show cause notice, and the subsequent impugned order u/s 16(2)(b) for physical possession/actual receipt of goods.Details of the Judgment:1. The petitioner, engaged in steel contracts, received an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A on 04.05.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 07.05.2023 with supporting documents. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 14.06.2023, which the petitioner claims to be unaware of due to its location on the GST portal. The impugned order was issued on 14.08.2023, leading to the filing of a writ petition after a rectification petition on 19.01.2024.2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's reply dated 07.05.2023, emphasizing the submission of documents to establish the genuineness of supplies received. The respondent's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit such documents was challenged based on the evidence attached to the petitioner's reply.3. The Government Advocate for the respondent acknowledged that the impugned order was issued due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice.4. The petitioner's reply dated 07.05.2023 refuted the liability and included various documents such as invoices, weighment slips, e-way bills, ledger copies, and payment details related to the supplies. Despite this, the impugned order stated that the dealer had not furnished necessary documents to establish the movement of goods u/s 16(2)(b) for physical possession/actual receipt of goods.5. The Court found the respondent's conclusions unsustainable in light of the documents annexed to the petitioner's reply. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted 15 days to file a reply to the show cause notice, with the directive to provide all relevant documents. The respondent was instructed to offer a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from the receipt of the petitioner's reply.6. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
