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>Petitioner Wins GST Assessment Challenge: Evidence of Prior Returns Leads to Order Quashing and Remand for Fair Hearing</h1> <h3>TV Corp Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner ST, Chennai</h3> TV Corp Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner ST, Chennai - 2024 (85) G.S.T.L. 211 (Mad.) Issues involved:Challenge to assessment order based on dropped proceedings by Central GST authorities, consequential adjustments in GSTR returns, failure to point out Central GST authorities' decision to State GST authorities, interference with impugned order, remand for reconsideration.Analysis:The writ petition challenges an assessment order dated 07.09.2023 primarily because proceedings related to the same assessment period and issue were dropped by Central GST authorities. The petitioner had received a notice from Central GST authorities in 2022 regarding returns filed for the assessment period 2017-18. After replying to the notice on various dates in June and July 2022, it was concluded that the petitioner had rectified the discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns by adjusting Rs.21,39,821/- in the GSTR 3B return for April 2018. Despite this, State GST authorities initiated action for the same period and issues. The petitioner pointed out the adjustments made to the State authorities, but the impugned order was still issued.The Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner failed to inform State GST authorities about the Central GST authorities' decision not to take further action on the issue. The Court noted that although the petitioner did not specifically mention the Central GST authorities' decision in their reply to the State authorities, evidence showed consequential adjustments were made in the GSTR returns. The Court found grounds for reconsideration based on the evidence presented, leading to interference with the impugned order.As a result, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to reevaluate the issue in light of the evidence discussed in the order and provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, within two months from receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
