TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 Assessment Challenge Succeeds: Impugned Orders Quashed, Fresh Hearing Ordered with Reasonable Opportunity to Respond</h1> <h3>Tvl. Metalica Metals, Represented by its Partner: Mr. Kailash Bhandari, Chennai Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer II, The Branch Manager, Chennai</h3> The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to tax assessment orders for 2019-2020. The court set aside the impugned orders, remanded the matter for ... Validity Of Order in original - No reasonable opportunity provided to contest the tax demand - mismatch between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns - HELD THAT:- From the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner was provided an opportunity but failed to avail of such opportunity. It is also clear that the tax liability pertains to three issues, namely, output mismatch between GSTR 3B and 1, input mismatch between GSTR 3B and 2A and e-way bill verification. As contended by learned senior counsel, on the first two issues, the extent of discrepancy is not substantial. The summary of the show cause notice does not appear to deal with the issue relating to e-way bill verification. It is also noticeable that an aggregate sum of Rs. 6,04,893/- was debited from the petitioner's electronic credit ledger towards tax liability confirmed in the impugned order. Thus, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. Upon receipt thereof, the 1st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. The writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Issues involved: Challenge to assessment orders for the period 2019-2020 due to lack of reasonable opportunity.Summary:The petitioner challenged an order for the assessment period 2019-2020, alleging lack of a reasonable opportunity. The petitioner had requested 30 days to reconcile and reply to an intimation received on 28.04.2023, but the impugned orders were issued on 09.11.2023 without providing a chance to contest the tax demand on merits. The tax proposals involved discrepancies in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns for outward supply, GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A for inward supply, and e-way bill verification. The discrepancies were not substantial, and the petitioner was debited significant amounts before filing the writ petition. The court set aside the order dated 09.11.2023, remanded the matter for reconsideration, and directed the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. The 1st respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The consequential attachment order dated 16.03.2024 was also set aside, and the attachment was raised, with amounts appropriated to abide by the outcome of the remanded proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
