High Court Quashes GST Tax Demand, Mandates 10% Deposit and Fresh Order with Technical Evidence Review HC allowed writ petition challenging tax demand under GST Act. The court set aside the original order, requiring petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court Quashes GST Tax Demand, Mandates 10% Deposit and Fresh Order with Technical Evidence Review
HC allowed writ petition challenging tax demand under GST Act. The court set aside the original order, requiring petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax (Rs. 41,65,176/-) within 30 days. Petitioner must submit detailed technical evidence to tax authorities. Third respondent directed to issue fresh order within 45 days, with no costs awarded.
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.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
