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 Assessment Order Challenged for Exceeding Show Cause Notice and Imposing 100% Penalty Under Section 74</h1> <h3>Sri Balaji Tollways (Madurai) Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Mr. Seyyadurai Nagarajan Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Madurai</h3> Sri Balaji Tollways (Madurai) Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Mr. Seyyadurai Nagarajan Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, ... In the case before the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the order was a 'non-speaking order,' violating Section 75(6) of the GST Act, as it did not address the petitioner's submissions. It was issued under Section 74 of the GST Act without allegations of fraud or suppression of facts, which are necessary jurisdictional preconditions. Additionally, the petitioner claimed the order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by imposing a 100% penalty, contrary to Section 75(7) of the GST Act, and was based on incorrect credit figures.The petitioner cited several judgments to support their case, including S.S. Communications v. Deputy State Tax Officer and HCL Infotech Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The respondent's counsel argued that the order was issued after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity to present their case and noted that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which they had not pursued.The court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, acknowledged the petitioner's right to appeal and disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The court instructed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks, it should be entertained without reference to the limitation period and resolved within three months. The respondent was ordered to maintain the status quo in the interim. There were no orders as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
