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>Order Overturned for Ignoring Evidence on ITC Claims; Case Sent Back for Fair Reconsideration Within 3 Months.</h1> <h3>M/s. Monika Alloys India Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer, Chennai</h3> The HC set aside the order dated 26.12.2023, finding it unsustainable due to the failure to consider the petitioner's reply and supporting documents ... Challenge to assessment order - petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration - wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 10.10.2023. Such reply appears to have been uploaded on the portal along with attachments thereto. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the petitioner did not file any objections to the DRC-01 notice or any documentary evidence. Such finding is contrary to the documents on record. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to order dated 26.12.2023 on the ground of petitioner's reply not considered.Analysis:The judgment concerns a challenge to an order dated 26.12.2023, where the petitioner's reply was allegedly not taken into consideration. The petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 19.09.2023 regarding the wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and had responded on 10.10.2023, stating that transitional VAT credit was claimed through Form TRAN-1. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reply and attached documents were not considered in issuing the impugned order.The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent accepted notice and suggested remanding the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner had submitted the reply dated 10.10.2023, which was uploaded on the portal with attachments. However, the impugned order incorrectly stated that the petitioner did not file objections or provide documentary evidence, contrary to the actual documents on record. Consequently, the court found the impugned order unsustainable.As a result, the High Court set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within three months from the receipt of the court's order, after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
