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>Tax Returns Filed Within 30 Days Under GST Act Section 62(2) Should Nullify Demand, Petitioner Claims</h1> <h3>M. Raju Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, The Assistant Commissioner, Thoothukudi</h3> The HC disposed of writ petitions challenging orders issued by the second respondent. The petitioner claimed that filing returns within 30 days under ... Withdrawal of orders, on filing of returns within 30 days from the date of the impugned orders - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is having a remedy to file an application for rectification before the second respondent under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, these writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for rectification before the second respondent under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, if any application is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the second respondent shall entertain the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one month thereafter. Petition disposed off. The Madras High Court, presided by Honourable Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, addressed writ petitions challenging orders issued by the second respondent on 27.07.2022, 16.12.2022, and 12.07.2023. The petitioner argued that under Section 62(2) of the GST Act, filing returns within 30 days of the impugned orders should result in their withdrawal, thus nullifying the corresponding demand. Despite filing returns for the specified periods within this timeframe, the second respondent persisted in demanding payment, allegedly violating the principles of natural justice.The Government Advocate, Mr. J.K. Jayaselan, contended that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to apply for rectification before the second respondent, which the petitioner bypassed by approaching the court directly.The Court disposed of the petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to file a rectification application under Section 161 within two weeks from receiving the order. The second respondent is directed to entertain and resolve the application within one month, providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. Failure to file within the specified time will revive the impugned orders. No costs were ordered, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
