Tax Demand Challenge Upheld: Petitioner Ordered to Deposit 10% While Respondent Reconsiders Original Order Within 3 Months The HC examined a tax demand challenge where the petitioner claimed lack of proper notice. The court set aside the original tax order, remanded the matter ...
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 Challenge Upheld: Petitioner Ordered to Deposit 10% While Respondent Reconsiders Original Order Within 3 Months
The HC examined a tax demand challenge where the petitioner claimed lack of proper notice. The court set aside the original tax order, remanded the matter for reconsideration, and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax. The respondent was instructed to provide a fresh hearing and issue a new order within three months, with garnishee proceedings suspended. The case was disposed of without costs.
Issues involved: Challenge to tax demand order due to lack of opportunity for contesting.
Summary:
Issue 1: Lack of Opportunity for Contesting Tax Demand The petitioner challenged an order dated 05.12.2023, claiming they were not given a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the proceedings leading to the order as the notice and order were only uploaded on the GST portal. It was only when garnishee proceedings began in March 2024 that the petitioner became aware of the situation.
Issue 2: Alleged Mismatch in Tax Proposal The petitioner contended that the confirmed tax proposal was based on a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, asserting that only eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for reconsideration.
Issue 3: Respondent's Position The Government Advocate representing the respondent argued that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, including a show cause notice and a personal hearing, as evidenced by the impugned order.
Judgment Upon examination, it was found that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice. The court set aside the order dated 05.12.2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and provide a detailed reply to the show cause notice with relevant documents. The respondent was instructed to offer a reasonable opportunity for contesting the tax demand, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioner's reply. The garnishee order was also set aside. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred, and related motions were closed accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
