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>Court Quashes GST Order Due to Dual Registration Error; Demand Against Petitioner Ruled Unsustainable Under Section 73</h1> <h3>M/s Jindal Communication Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 others</h3> The Allahabad HC quashed the show cause notice and final order against the petitioner under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due ... Challenge to notice issued on account of difference in GST turnover and PAN turnover - HELD THAT:- The respondents based on the material produced by the petitioner, indicating the return filed in relation to Jindal Marketing Company wherein the return etc. have been shown identical to the difference which was alleged in relation to the petitioner firm, i.e. Jindal Communication, is not in a position to dispute the plea raised by the petitioner regarding issuance of show cause notice and passing of the final order on account of the fact that both the firms were registered under the GST through the same PAN number. In view of the above fact situation, the issuance of show cause notice and raising of the demand against the petitioner firm cannot be sustained. Petition allowed. In the case before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner challenged the issuance of a show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 and a final order dated 08.08.2024 under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute arose due to a discrepancy between the GST turnover and PAN turnover, resulting in a demand of Rs. 76,11,305.The petitioner, Jindal Communication, argued that the issue stemmed from the registration of two firms, Jindal Communication and Jindal Marketing Company, under the same PAN number. Jindal Marketing Company had filed returns reflecting the turnover in question, while the respondents sought the same turnover from Jindal Communication. The petitioner's application for rectification under Section 161 of the Act was rejected as time-barred.The respondents could not dispute the petitioner's claim regarding the dual registration under the same PAN. The court found that the issuance of the show cause notice and the demand against the petitioner could not be sustained due to this administrative oversight. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and both the show cause notice and the final order were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
