Tax Assessment Challenged: Procedural Flaws Exposed, Order Quashed, Case Remitted with 10% Tax Deposit Directive HC allowed writ petition challenging tax assessment. Despite procedural delays and non-participation in initial proceedings, the court quashed the ...
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 Assessment Challenged: Procedural Flaws Exposed, Order Quashed, Case Remitted with 10% Tax Deposit Directive
HC allowed writ petition challenging tax assessment. Despite procedural delays and non-participation in initial proceedings, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent. Petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of disputed tax within 30 days, with respondent expected to pass a fresh order within three months.
Issues involved: 1. Failure to participate in show cause proceeding and file statutory appeal in time. 2. Inclusion of VAT turnover in determining GST liability. 3. Quashing of impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner did not participate in the show cause proceeding or file any statutory appeal in time, leading to the challenge of the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 through a writ petition. The petitioner mentioned handing over papers to a Sales Tax Practitioner/GST Practitioner for filing an appeal, which was not done. The lack of a proper explanation for the delay was noted by the court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount taxable under the TNVAT Act, 2006 was included in determining the petitioner's tax liability under the GST Act from 01.07.2017. It was contended that the VAT turnover should not be automatically included in the GST turnover based on a comparison with returns filed by the Department.
3. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Court decided to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the notice issued earlier, with the expectation that a fresh order would be passed within three months.
Overall, the writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment delivered by the High Court.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
