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 assessment orders quashed due to defective show cause notices failing to specify grounds for extended limitation under Section 74</h1> <h3>M/s. Malindo Airway SDN BHD., Versus State Tax Officer, Tamil Nadu.</h3> M/s. Malindo Airway SDN BHD., Versus State Tax Officer, Tamil Nadu. - 2024 (89) G.S.T.L. 95 (Mad.) Issues:Challenged Assessment Orders for multiple Assessment Years, Dispute over collection of Passenger Services Fee (PSF) and User Development Fee (UDF), Availing input tax credit, Lack of clarity in Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders.Analysis:Challenged Assessment Orders:The petitioner challenged Assessment Orders for various Assessment Years, disputing the demands confirmed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the Notices did not mention ingredients for invoking a larger period of limitation under Section 74 of the GST enactments, and they were not issued with Form GST ASMT-10 Notices. The petitioner provided replies and documents, but accessibility issues arose, leading to the passing of the impugned Assessment Orders.Dispute over PSF and UDF Collection:The petitioner, an airliner, collected PSF and UDF from passengers, paying it to the Airport Authority of India as a pure agent. The petitioner argued that these amounts should not be taxed in their hands, citing Circular No. 115/34/2019-GST. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's role as a pure agent and directed a re-examination of the tax liability on separate charges collected for acting as an agent.Availing Input Tax Credit:The Court highlighted the need to re-examine if the petitioner availed input tax credit on the service tax collected from passengers towards PSF and UDF, emphasizing the liability to reverse it if necessary.Clarity in Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders:Noting the lack of clarity in the Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders, the Court decided to quash the Assessment Orders and remit the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate, file replies, and furnish documents for re-adjudication within 12 months.Conclusion:The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, allowing the petitioner to raise objections and clarifications during the re-adjudication process. The respondent was instructed to complete the process within 12 months from the date of the order, emphasizing cooperation between the parties. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
