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>GST Order Upheld: Petitioner Fails to Prove Irregularities, Directed to Pursue Statutory Remedies Under Section 107</h1> <h3>M/s Buddha Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Shri Anil Tekriwal Versus Chief Commissioner Goods And Services Tax And Another</h3> M/s Buddha Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Shri Anil Tekriwal Versus Chief Commissioner Goods And Services Tax And Another - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to order dated 22/11/2023 passed under section-73 of GST Act.2. Allegation of not following the prescribed procedure under Sections 169(1)(a) and 169(1)(b) of the GST Act.3. Petitioner's claim of not receiving any notice under Section 73.4. Delay in challenging the order dated 22/11/2023.5. Prayer for direction under Section 108 of the UP GST Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order dated 22/11/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, under section-73 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the detailed explanation and documents submitted were not considered, and the order was passed without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner denied claiming excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) and alleged not receiving any notice under Section 73. The court noted the issuance of a notice for deposit based on wrongly claimed ITC, provision for submitting detailed documents, adjournments granted, and the petitioner's failure to provide any explanation. The court upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the petitioner's attempt to delay final orders within the statutory limitation period.2. The counsel for the State-respondents highlighted the petitioner's belated challenge to the order dated 22/11/2023 on 14.06.2024. The petitioner, through counsel, limited the prayer to a direction for the respondents to consider any representation under Section 108 of the UP GST Act. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the Act for further recourse. The judgment emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under Section 107 of the GST Act for the petitioner.3. In conclusion, the court addressed the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the order passed under section-73 of the GST Act. Despite the petitioner's contentions of procedural irregularities and lack of notice, the court found in favor of the respondents based on the timeline of events and the petitioner's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and timelines while also acknowledging the petitioner's right to seek redressal through statutory remedies available under the relevant provisions of the GST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
