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 Dispute Resolved: 10% Payment Required, Reassessment Ordered with Full Hearing and Documentation Opportunity</h1> <h3>WIN WIN Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Mani Venugopal Versus The State Tax officer, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tiruvallur, The Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Daesong India Automotive Private Limited, Prospira India Automotive Products Pvt. Ltd.</h3> WIN WIN Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Mani Venugopal Versus The State Tax officer, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ... Issues:Challenging assessment orders, rectification applications rejection, bill trading allegations, mismatch of GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, error in filing GSTR-3B, remand for reconsideration, payment of disputed tax amount, setting aside assessment orders, fresh consideration, reply filing, personal hearing, recovery notices quashing, bank attachment notice release.Analysis:The writ petitions were filed to challenge four assessment orders, recovery notices, and a bank attachment notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner participated in the personal hearing and filed rectification applications after the assessment orders were passed for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2020-21. Allegations of bill trading and GSTR discrepancies were made against the petitioner, leading to the assessment orders. The respondent dropped proceedings related to bill trading after reviewing the petitioner's reply but continued based on GSTR discrepancies.The petitioner argued that an error occurred while filing GSTR-3B, supported by a certificate now available. They offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount and requested an opportunity to prove their case. The Government Advocate for the respondent confirmed the certificate's validity and requested the matter to be remanded for reconsideration. The Court examined the submissions and materials on record, finding it necessary to allow the petitioner to establish their case.Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment orders for fresh consideration by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, with the setting aside of orders effective upon payment. The petitioner must file a reply with necessary documents within three weeks of the order receipt. The respondent would then schedule a personal hearing, issue clear notices, and pass orders promptly after considering the petitioner's submissions.As the assessment orders were annulled, the Court quashed the recovery notices and bank attachment notice. The respondent was instructed to release the bank account attachment upon proof of payment by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed in line with the Court's directions.
TaxTMI 