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>Sweet Justice: GST Tax Dispute Overturned Due to Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Respond and Partially Settle Demand</h1> <h3>Mr. Panjatcharam Kumaravel Proprietor of Tvl. Dhanalakshmi Agencies Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.</h3> Mr. Panjatcharam Kumaravel Proprietor of Tvl. Dhanalakshmi Agencies Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamil Nadu ... Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are quashment of an order under Form GST DRC-07, direction to provide an opportunity to respond to a Show Cause Notice, non-payment of GST arrears, discrepancies in returns, tax ascertained as payable under Section 73 (5), attachment order on a bank account, errors in filing GSTR-3B returns, procurement of supplies from a registered person, and application of Reverse Charge Mechanism.Quashment of Order under Form GST DRC-07:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an Order dated 21.11.2023 in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner requested the first Respondent to provide an opportunity to respond to a Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2023 in Form GST DRC-01. The petitioner, engaged in the business of procuring and distributing sweets and snacks, claimed that errors were made while filing GSTR-3B returns during 2017-18. The Court observed that the impugned proceedings were initiated before the issuance of the impugned order. The Court interfered with the impugned order and quashed it, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand for the assessment year 2017-2018 within four weeks. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the Appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue an assessment order afresh within six weeks.Non-payment of GST Arrears and Attachment Order:The petitioner received a letter from the second respondent Office regarding non-payment of GST arrears and an attachment order on the bank account. The petitioner, upon verification on the GST Portal, could not trace any demand or pending proceedings against him. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were initiated through various notices and orders uploaded on the GST Portal. The Court noted the contentions of both parties and directed the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within four weeks, with further instructions to the Assessing Officer for a re-assessment order.Errors in Filing Returns and Reverse Charge Mechanism:The petitioner admitted to inadvertent errors in filing monthly GSTR-3B returns during 2017-18. The errors involved mistakenly reporting ITC available on tax paid on inward supplies under the wrong column. The petitioner claimed to have procured supplies from a registered person for retail distribution of sweets and snacks. The inward supplies were not notified as tax payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner, being a registered person under the GST Regime, cannot claim lack of access to the Portal as a valid reason. The Court considered the petitioner's contentions and decided to quash the impugned order upon the petitioner's compliance with the specified conditions.
TaxTMI 