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 Challenge Upheld: Fresh Review Ordered with Procedural Fairness and Opportunity for Comprehensive Reply</h1> <h3>Tvl. M. Muthupandi, Contractor, Represented by its Proprietor Muthupandi Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Madurai.</h3> HC allowed tax assessment challenge, quashing previous orders and remitting cases for fresh consideration. Petitioner granted 30 days to file consolidated ... Challenge to assessment orders - petitioner has not replied to the SCN stating that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Kidney ailment, which stands recorded in the respective impugned orders - HELD THAT:- Having considered the fact that the petitioner has not replied to the respective Show Cause Notices issued under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, considering the predicament of the petitioner that the petitioner was ailing from Kidney problem and considering the fact that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,76,810/-, the Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the respective show cause notices that preceded the respective impugned orders - The petitioner is directed to file consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging assessment orders, discrepancies in tax filings, time-barred appeals.Analysis:The judgment involves the disposal of two Writ Petitions challenging assessment orders for different assessment years. The petitioner, a Government Contractor, contested the demand based on discrepancies in tax filings and sought a proper explanation, citing health issues as a reason for delayed response to Show Cause Notices. The petitioner had paid part of the tax amounts under protest. The petitioner requested a remittance of the case for a proper reconciliation based on a certificate from the Government Department. The respondent opposed, arguing time-barred appeals citing relevant Supreme Court decisions.The Court considered the submissions of both parties and noted the petitioner's health issues and partial tax payments. Despite the lack of response to Show Cause Notices, the Court decided to quash the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders. The quashed orders were to be treated as addendum to the Show Cause Notices. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment balanced the petitioner's health issues and procedural delays with the need for proper assessment and compliance with the law, providing an opportunity for a fresh consideration of the cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
