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>High Court Quashes GST Tax Demand, Mandates 10% Deposit and Fresh Order with Technical Evidence Review</h1> <h3>Robert Fibre Industries, rep. By its Proprietor C. Paulraj Versus The Commissioner, The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Kanniyakumari</h3> Robert Fibre Industries, rep. By its Proprietor C. Paulraj Versus The Commissioner, The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, The Deputy State Tax ... Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order dated 30.12.2023 u/s GSTIN. 33ALYPP1128K1ZO/2017-18.Judgment Summary:Tax Liability Determination: The third respondent confirmed the tax liability of the petitioner under Sec. 73(1) of the GST Act 2017, amounting to Rs. 41,65,176/- (IGST Rs. 40,94,520/-, CGST Rs. 35,328/- & SGST Rs. 35,328/-). Additionally, interest liability u/s 50(1) of the GST Act 2017 and penalty of 10% on the tax liability were also confirmed.Reasons for Confirming Demand: The confirmation was based on the petitioner's failure to provide a valid reply or cooperate during the process. The nature of the manufactured product, 'Brush Fibre,' was discussed in detail to determine its taxability at 12% under Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28.06.2017.Petitioner's Response: The petitioner's reply, though lacking in addressing the allegations, emphasized the absence of manufacturing activity. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's response and the need for detailed evidence to support their claims.Court Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, requiring the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed reply, technical literature, and samples to the third respondent. The impugned order was quashed, pending a fresh order from the third respondent within 45 days.Conclusion: The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
TaxTMI 