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>Assessment order set aside for breach of natural justice; notices improperly served; final chance given - 10% deposit within four weeks</h1> <h3>Tvl. B. Rama Contractor Versus The Commercial Tax Officer/The State Tax Officer (Int), Inspection - IV, The Joint Commissioner, and The Deputy State Tax Officer, Villupuram</h3> HC set aside the impugned assessment order dated 19.08.2024 for breach of natural justice, noting show-cause notices and the assessment were not properly ... Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to impugned order - either the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD - petitioner was unaware of the impugned order of assessment - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax and seeks grant of one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 19.08.2024 is set aside - The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. The High Court of Madras considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.08.2024, issued by the 1st respondent under GSTIN:33ARSPR9455K1ZU/2022-2023, alleging violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner, a service provider registered under the GST Act, faced various issues during an inspection at their business premises, including incorrect Input Tax Credit, tax rate discrepancies, E-way bill mismatches, non-filing of GSTR 9C, and belated return filing for 2022-23.The petitioner received multiple notices and reminders from the respondent but failed to respond or attend a personal hearing. The impugned order was passed without serving the show cause notices physically, instead uploading them on the GST Portal, leading to the petitioner's unawareness. The petitioner sought an opportunity to provide supporting documents to clarify the alleged discrepancies, citing a precedent where a similar matter was remanded back to the authority upon payment of 10% of disputed taxes.After negotiations, the parties agreed to set aside the impugned order and the petitioner agreed to deposit 10% of the disputed taxes within four weeks. Any amounts already paid would be adjusted, and the remaining sum, if any, would be paid within three weeks. Failure to comply would result in the restoration of the impugned order, with provisions for lifting any bank account attachments upon compliance. The payment of 10% of disputed taxes would be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections within four weeks along with supporting documents. Non-compliance with these conditions would lead to the reinstatement of the impugned order.The Court made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.This judgment primarily focused on the petitioner's procedural lapses, the respondent's actions, and the resolution through payment of a portion of the disputed taxes and submission of objections within specified timelines. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the principles of natural justice in tax assessment matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
