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Tax Order Challenge Withdrawn After Typographical Error Acknowledged, Appeal Route Opened Under Section 107 of CGST</h1> <h3>M/s Prasad Explosive & Chemicals Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi., Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi, Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi.</h3> HC allowed withdrawal of writ petition challenging tax order after respondent acknowledged a typographical error in tax period. Petitioner granted liberty ... Permission to withdraw writ petition - discrepancy in tax period mentioned in the show cause notice and the impugned order - HELD THAT:- The writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant petition with a liberty to file an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the CGST. It has been submitted that the appeal will be filed within a period of two weeks. The instant writ petition is being disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal within a period of two weeks. Issues:- Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedy of appeal- Discrepancy in tax period mentioned in the show cause notice and the impugned orderAnalysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order dated 27.12.2023. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal.2. The petitioner argued that the tax period mentioned in the show cause notice (July 2017 to March 2018) differed from the tax period referred to in the impugned order (2017-18 and 2018-19). This discrepancy could impact the deposit required for filing an appeal, causing hardship to the petitioner.3. The respondent, after seeking instructions, acknowledged a typographical error in the impugned order regarding the tax period. They clarified that the appeal should be based on the correct calculation for the period from July 2017-18, alleviating the need for an additional deposit based on the erroneous tax period reference.4. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST within two weeks. The court granted permission for withdrawal and directed the appellate authority to decide on the appeal within six weeks in accordance with the law.5. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the appeal within the specified timeframe, ensuring the resolution of the matter through the appropriate appellate process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
