Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
GST authorities must issue fresh orders after petitioner failed to respond to overlapping demands under Sections 63 and 74 HC dismissed writ petitions challenging overlapping GST demands confirmed under Section 63 and subsequently under Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for ...
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.
GST authorities must issue fresh orders after petitioner failed to respond to overlapping demands under Sections 63 and 74
HC dismissed writ petitions challenging overlapping GST demands confirmed under Section 63 and subsequently under Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since petitioner failed to respond to show cause notices and matter required detailed consideration, impugned orders were quashed and cases remitted to authorities for fresh orders on merits in accordance with law. Petition disposed through remand.
Issues: Challenging impugned orders under Sections 63 and 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Analysis: The petitioner contested impugned orders issued under Sections 63 and 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, alleging overlapping demands previously confirmed under Section 63. The disputed demands for the assessment years were detailed in the writ petitions. The Government Advocate for the respondents referred to the impugned orders passed under Section 74 for the respective assessment years, highlighting the income details as per Profit & Loss statements. The respondent argued against the challenge to the impugned orders based on the alleged overlapping demands confirmed earlier under Section 63, asserting that the writ petitions should be dismissed.
The court acknowledged the lack of response from the petitioner to the show cause notices preceding the impugned orders due to pending writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions on the grounds of overlapping demands confirmed earlier under Section 63, the court noted the necessity for detailed consideration due to the pending matters. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the respondents for fresh orders on merits and in compliance with the law. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for each financial year, considering the amount already pre-deposited as part of the required pre-deposit. The court concluded by disposing of the writ petitions with the specified directions and without imposing any costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
