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>Tax Assessment Order Overturned: Procedural Flaws Expose Need for Fair Hearing and Proper Legal Consideration Under Section 143</h1> <h3>M/s. Jesus Ginning and Raymond Seeds Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. S. Kamaraj Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Tuticorin</h3> HC found procedural irregularities in tax assessment order for 2018-2019. While petitioner failed to respond to notices, court identified respondent's ... Challenge to assessment order - discrepancies between the return filed by the petitioner in Form GSTR - 1 and in Form GSTR - 3B and the discrepancies between amounts in Form GSTR - 3B and in Form GSTR - 2A/GSTR - 9 - HELD THAT:- The respondent cannot be wholly blamed in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has failed to respond to both the notice in Form GST DRC-01A dated 08.08.2023 and the SCN. Be that as it may, the amount which was dropped in the earlier proceedings dated 15.03.2023 by the respondent has also been confirmed and therefore, there is an indication that there is non-application of mind on this aspect. Considering the same, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the balance amount of Rs. 3,61,036/- with the respondent, within period of 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Original for Assessment Year 2018-2019, Violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.06/GST/EPM/2024 dated 12.02.2024, which confirmed discrepancies in tax liability and excess input tax credit availed. The petitioner was issued a notice to explain the discrepancies, which were partially dropped earlier. Despite subsequent notices, the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the confirmation of the demand by the respondent. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice.The Court noted the petitioner's failure to respond to the notices issued by the respondent, including the Show Cause Notice. However, it observed a lack of application of mind by the respondent in confirming the dropped amount without proper consideration. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh decision, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the balance amount within 30 days.The impugned order was directed to be treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice, and the petitioner was given 30 days to respond and deposit the required amount. If the petitioner complies, the respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without costs, closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
