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 Dispute: Orders Set Aside, Petitioner to Deposit 25% Tax and Submit Objections with Documents in 4 Weeks.</h1> <h3>VTL Global Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr. Rajesh Kumar Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai, Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai, Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai</h3> VTL Global Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr. Rajesh Kumar Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai, Deputy Commissioner ... Issues:Challenge to impugned order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Allegations of Non-Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the Petitioner's suppliers; Lack of personal hearing opportunities for the Petitioner; Service of show cause notices and order of assessment through the common portal; Rejection of appeal due to delay in filing; Request for explanation of alleged discrepancies and reliance on a recent judgment; Proposal to pay 25% of disputed tax and lifting of bank attachment; Setting aside of impugned orders and conditions for depositing disputed tax, submission of objections, and lifting of bank attachment; Disposal of the writ petition with no costs.Analysis:The writ petition was filed to challenge the impugned order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner, a private limited company registered under the GST Acts, received a notice alleging Non-Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to credit notes issued by its suppliers. The First Respondent issued a Summary of Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 60,97,044/-, including interest and penalty, for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner claimed lack of sufficient personal hearing opportunities during the adjudication process, raising concerns about the service of notices and orders through the common portal.The impugned orders were challenged on the grounds of inadequate service methods and the Petitioner's inability to participate effectively in the adjudication proceedings due to portal access issues. The Petitioner's appeal was rejected based on a filing delay. The Petitioner sought an opportunity to explain discrepancies, citing a recent judgment for support. Additionally, the Petitioner proposed to pay 25% of the disputed tax and requested the lifting of a bank attachment.The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The amount remitted in excess of the admitted tax would be considered. The Petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit objections with supporting documents within four weeks. Failure to comply within the stipulated period would result in the revival of the impugned order. Recovery proceedings, including bank attachments, were to be lifted upon payment of the required amount within two weeks.Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings related to the dispute.
TaxTMI 