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 Demand Notice Appeal Partially Allowed: 10% Tax Deposit Required, Expedited Hearing Mandated Within Three Months</h1> <h3>M. Nithaiahnantham Versus The Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) -II, Virudhunagar.</h3> M. Nithaiahnantham Versus The Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) -II, Virudhunagar. - TMI Issues: Appeal against rejection of appeal on grounds of limitation in GST matterIn this case, the petitioner filed an appeal against a demand notice for the assessment year 2021-22, which was rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner argued that there was an error in paying the tax, leading to the tax liability. The petitioner requested a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation. The Additional Government Pleader for the respondents cited a Supreme Court decision to support the dismissal of the writ petition. The court, after considering the submissions, set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days, as per Section 107 of the GST enactments. The first respondent was directed to expedite the appeal process, preferably within three months from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with the given directions, and no costs were awarded.This judgment addresses the issue of rejection of an appeal on the grounds of limitation in a GST matter. The petitioner's appeal against a demand notice was rejected due to a perceived error in tax payment, leading to a tax liability. The petitioner sought to have the appeal decided on its merits without being constrained by the limitation. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and decided to set aside the impugned order. The court directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days, as required by Section 107 of the GST enactments. The first respondent was tasked with expediting the appeal process, aiming to conclude it within three months from the date of the order. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 