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>Madras HC Overturns CGST Assessment Order for Ignoring Petitioner's Reply; Case Remanded for Reconsideration.</h1> <h3>Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer, The Branch Manager Chennai</h3> The Madras HC set aside the assessment order dated 27.04.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the first respondent's failure to consider ... Challenge to assessment order issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the petitioner duly filed a reply to the show cause notice on 08.02.2024. However, without considering this reply, the first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order as if no reply had been submitted, clearly demonstrating a total non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent, who shall consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 08.02.2024 and, after issuing a clear 14-days notice specifying a date of personal hearing, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed off by way of remand. In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, the petitioner sought to quash an assessment order dated 27.04.2024, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that despite filing a reply to the show cause notice (FORM GST DRC-01) on 08.02.2024, the first respondent, represented by Mr. C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), issued an order as if no reply had been submitted, indicating 'non-application of mind.'The Court found that the petitioner did indeed file a reply, which the first respondent failed to consider. This oversight led to the impugned order being set aside due to the evident non-application of mind. The attachment notice dated 27.08.2024 was also lifted. The case was remanded to the first respondent, with instructions to review the petitioner's reply, provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing, and issue a new order on merits and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
