We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Tax Demand Quashed: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Rs. 10.29 Crore Notice Under SGST/CGST Act Due to Authorization Gaps HC upheld petitioner's challenge to tax demand of Rs. 10,29,10,641/- under SGST/CGST Act. The court found procedural irregularities in the show-cause ...
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.
Tax Demand Quashed: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Rs. 10.29 Crore Notice Under SGST/CGST Act Due to Authorization Gaps
HC upheld petitioner's challenge to tax demand of Rs. 10,29,10,641/- under SGST/CGST Act. The court found procedural irregularities in the show-cause notice, including lack of proper authorization and personal hearing. An interim stay was granted on the demand order, with the matter listed for further hearing on 24.06.2024.
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 73 SGST/CGST Act, 2017 for demand of Rs. 10,29,10,641/- based on alleged excess claim of input tax credit without proper show-cause notice and personal hearing.
Summary:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.04.2024 u/s 73 SGST/CGST Act, 2017, demanding Rs. 10,29,10,641/- for alleged excess claim of input tax credit. The petitioner contended that the order was issued without a proper show-cause notice as mandated by Rule 142 of the Act. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of personal hearing and the reopening of the matter without valid reasons after a satisfactory reply to earlier demands for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-2020. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that both the show-cause notice and demand notice were not signed by the competent authority, as required by law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 28.04.2024 should be set aside and quashed, and the demand raised should be stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. In response, the Standing Counsel for SGST and the learned CGC requested time to complete their instructions. Notice was issued, returnable by four weeks, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 24.06.2024.
Considering the submissions and the provisions of the Act and Rules, the Court found that the respondents did not adhere to the required procedures while issuing the demand. Therefore, the Court ordered that the impugned order of demand dated 28.04.2024 shall remain stayed until the next scheduled hearing on 24.06.2024.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
