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>Karnataka HC Rules Petitioner's Request Unwarranted; Notice Under KGST Act Allows Addressing Discrepancies and Legal Contentions.</h1> <h3>M/s. Vaishan Traders IV, Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, (Enforcement 1), Dharwad Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement 1, Hubbali, Dharwad, Commercial Tax Inspector, (Enforcement), Dharwad.</h3> In the case before the Karnataka HC, the petitioner sought to quash an order under the KGST Act, arguing non-compliance with procedural requirements. The ... Challenge to action initiated by the official respondents - procedure under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act has been undertaken without section 67 (1) of the KGST Act having been complied - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the indulgence as requested by the petitioner is not required to be granted since vide communication dated 12.11.2024 the petitioner has merely been afforded an opportunity of hearing after the official respondents have set out the discrepancies as noticed by them. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to respond to the discrepancies as notified in the communication dated 12.11.2024. While responding to the same, it is open to the petitioner to take all contentions permissible under law including the contentions with regard to Section 67 (1) of the KGST Act that has been urged in the present writ petition. Petition disposed off. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 12-11-2024 and related documents issued by the first respondent under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('KGST Act'). The petitioner argued that the actions taken under Section 67(2) of the KGST Act were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 67(1). The respondents contended that the communication was merely a notice for a hearing, causing no hardship to the petitioner. The court concluded that the petitioner's request for relief was unwarranted, as the communication dated 12-11-2024 only provided an opportunity for the petitioner to address discrepancies noted by the respondents. The court allowed the petitioner to respond to these discrepancies and raise any legal contentions, including those related to Section 67(1) of the KGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
