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 Authority's ITC reversal order stayed due to typographical errors in show cause notice under Section 73</h1> <h3>M/s. Coastal Construction Versus The Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack and others</h3> The HC held that inserting clause (e) in the SCN and subsequent order under Section 73 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 constituted typographical errors. While ... Rectification of mistake - typographical error - Challenge to SCN and subsequent order under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- Inserting clause (e) in the provision reproduced in the SCN and impugned order are typographical errors. The two provisos are clearly there. However, satisfaction needed that there was finding, of petitioner having had claimed and availed the ITC. Revenue to issue instructions. List on 21st January, 2025. Impugned order will remain stayed till next date of hearing. The High Court of Orissa, presided by Hon'ble Justices Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, addressed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and subsequent order under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. R.P. Kar, argued that the notice dated 8th August 2023, contained errors, specifically the incorrect addition of clause (e) in Section 16(2), leading to a demand for reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 37,02,723/- with interest. This amount was derived from sundry creditors totaling Rs. 2,05,70,686/-.The petitioner contended that the ITC was wrongly attributed, explaining that a portion related to exempted supplies, including diesel and services from unregistered suppliers, leaving a taxable amount of Rs. 30,38,928/-. The revenue, represented by Mr. S. Mishra, argued that the sundry creditor amount was not reversed within 180 days, justifying the demand, and noted that the petitioner lost the right of appeal, rendering the petition non-maintainable.The court acknowledged typographical errors in the notice and order but required confirmation that the petitioner had indeed claimed and availed the ITC. The impugned order was stayed, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 21st January 2025.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
