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 Dispute Resolution: CGST Rules Allow Two-Week Extension for Response and Personal Hearing to Address Procedural Concerns</h1> <h3>ASUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus GST OFFICER, WARD-91, ZONE-8 DELHI</h3> The HC granted a two-week extension for responding to a show cause notice under CGST Rules, directing the proper officer to provide a personal hearing. ... Violation of principles of natural justice - non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 142 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to respond in Form GST/DRC-01A or to pay the amount of tax - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of granting petitioner two weeks’ time to file a response to the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023. The proper officer shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Impugning a show cause notice u/s Rule 142(1) of CGST Rules 2017 without compliance, lack of signatures on the notice, expired response time, and seeking an opportunity to respond.Summary:The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 08.12.2023, alleging non-compliance with Rule 142(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 and the absence of proper officer signatures on the notice. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent failed to follow the rule by not providing an opportunity to respond or pay the tax. Despite the expired response deadline on 08.01.2024, the petitioner requested a chance to reply, preserving the right to raise legal pleas regarding non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) and the notice's validity due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) or proper officer signatures.Considering the unique circumstances, the court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner a two-week extension to respond to the show cause notice. The proper officer was directed to offer a personal hearing to the petitioner and then adjudicate the notice following legal procedures. The court clarified that it did not assess or comment on the parties' arguments, preserving all rights and contentions for future consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
