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 Demand Overturned: Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Contest GSTR 3B Return Cancellation Under Section 30</h1> <h3>M/s. Sarvagya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Shri. S. Prabhakar Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai</h3> M/s. Sarvagya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Shri. S. Prabhakar Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai - 2024 (85) ... Issues involved: Challenge to an order u/s 62 of the TNGST Act for non-filing of GSTR 3B return for August 2022, cancellation of GST registration, imposition of liability based on turnover, and opportunity to contest tax demand.Challenge to order u/s 62 of the TNGST Act: The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.11.2022 issued u/s 62 of the TNGST Act for non-filing of the GSTR 3B return for August 2022. The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled with effect from 31.07.2022, the assessment order under Section 62 was unsustainable as it applies only if a registered person fails to file returns.Cancellation of GST registration and imposition of liability: The Government Advocate pointed out that the registration was cancelled on 28.11.2022, and the petitioner was able to file returns for August 2022. The assessment order was made on a best judgment basis due to the petitioner continuing business during the relevant period. The liability was imposed based on the petitioner's turnover for March 2022, and a portion of the disputed tax demand was remitted when the petitioner sought to avail an amnesty scheme for filing appeals.Opportunity to contest tax demand: The petitioner claimed that no business was conducted in August 2022, and therefore, they should be given a chance to contest the tax demand. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from the receipt of the court's order.Disposition: W.P.No.8837 of 2024 was disposed of with the above terms, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs being awarded.
TaxTMI 