Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the tax demand order confirming liability on the basis of mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A, without the petitioner having replied to the notice or participated in the proceedings, should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The order proceeded on the footing that the petitioner had not filed a reply or participated in the proceedings, although the dispute concerned a tax mismatch issue capable of explanation on merits. The Court found it just and appropriate to afford another opportunity, subject to the petitioner being put on terms by remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within the stipulated time. The petitioner was also permitted to file a detailed reply, after which the respondent was required to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration, subject to the condition of remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand.