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>Telangana HC Nullifies Tax Demand of Rs.35 Crore u/s 73 CGST Act; Case Remanded for Re-evaluation.</h1> <h3>M/s. Procter and Gamble Home Products Private Limited Versus Union of India, State of Telangana, Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-2</h3> The Telangana HC set aside the impugned order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which confirmed a tax demand of Rs.35,31,59,288.00, due to procedural ... Challenge to order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - statutory obligation of adjudicating authority u/s 73 (9) of the CGST Act to determine the tax - principle argument of the petitioner is that the procedure adopted by the ‘Proper Officer’ is unknown to law - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has different registration in the State of Telangana. Thus, the ‘Proper Officer’ of Telangana is an independent statutory authority and was under no obligation to wait for the outcome of the decision taken by the Maharashtra State GST Department. In the absence of determining the tax as per sub-Section 9 of Section 73, the impugned order is bad in law and ultra vires Section 73 (9) of the CGST Act. Revenue submits that the impugned order, on this ground, may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the proper officer to decide it a fresh. The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back - Petition disposed off by way of remand. In the case before the Telangana High Court, the petitioner challenged an order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner argued that the Telangana State GST authority, as an independent statutory body, was not required to wait for the Maharashtra State GST Department's decision before determining the tax liability, as mandated by Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. The impugned order confirmed a tax demand of Rs.35,31,59,288.00, conditional upon communication from Maharashtra authorities, which the petitioner claimed was 'unknown to law' and 'ultra vires' Section 73(9).The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax conceded that the order could be set aside on these grounds, and the matter should be remitted back to the proper officer for fresh consideration. The court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for re-evaluation by the proper officer, allowing the petitioner to raise all potential arguments. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
