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>Tax Dispute Resolved: Procedural Flaws Halt Coercive Measures, Petitioner Granted Fair Hearing and Additional Time to Respond</h1> <h3>M/s. Lids Advertisers Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer, Pathanamthitta; Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government, New Delhi; Central Board Of Indirect Taxes & Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi; State Tax Officer (Arrear Recovery), Pathanamthitta</h3> HC resolved tax filing dispute for 2017-2018, finding procedural irregularities in 1st respondent's rejection of taxpayer's explanation. Court suspended ... Nil returns filed by mistake, but tax in respect of the year 2017 - 2018 has been remitted by the petitioner to the electronic cash ledger - HELD THAT:- Though it is stated that the reply filed by the tax payer is not acceptable, no reason, whatsoever, is forthcoming for not accepting the reply. The learned Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions - Post on 07.06.2024. Issues:1. Discrepancy in tax filing for the year 2017-2018.2. Rejection of petitioner's contention by the 1st respondent.3. Lack of reason provided for not accepting the taxpayer's reply in Ext. P10.The judgment addresses the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the remittance of tax for the year 2017-2018 to the electronic cash ledger, despite filing nil returns for the same period by mistake. The learned Government Pleader, as per Ext. P10 order, rejected the petitioner's contention without providing a clear reason for the rejection. Ext. P10 highlighted that the taxpayer had an opportunity to explain the situation and had already remitted the tax through DRC 03 from the electronic cash ledger, requesting the dropping of interest on delayed payment. However, the response from the taxpayer was deemed unacceptable without any justification provided for this decision.The judgment further notes that while Ext. P10 mentions the unacceptability of the taxpayer's reply, it fails to offer any explanation for this conclusion. The learned Government Pleader has requested additional time to obtain instructions on the matter, leading to a postponement of further action until 07.06.2024. Notably, the judgment emphasizes that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioner based on Ext. P12 until the next hearing date. This decision ensures a fair process and prevents any undue pressure on the petitioner during the ongoing legal proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of providing clear and justified reasons for decisions, especially when rejecting a taxpayer's response or contention. By granting time for the Government Pleader to gather instructions and postponing coercive actions, the court ensures a balanced and transparent resolution to the tax filing discrepancy issue. The case underscores the significance of procedural fairness and thorough consideration of taxpayer submissions in tax-related matters to uphold principles of justice and equity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
