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 Demand Order Invalidated for Procedural Defects, Requiring Comprehensive Reasoning and Proper Statutory Compliance</h1> <h3>M/s Maa Durga Auto Sales Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others</h3> HC quashed an undated tax demand order for lacking statutory requirements under GST Act. The court found the order deficient in providing factual basis ... Challenge to undated demand order - failure to fulfill requirement of Section 75(6) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the undated order (Annexure-1) also does not contain any reason and only the indication made in the show cause notice has been incorporated by reference and, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2, who shall provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today and, thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed - Petition allowed by way of remand. In the case before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner challenged an undated demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order failed to meet the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, referencing the precedent set in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., where it was held that an order must 'set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.'The court noted that the impugned order merely referenced previous notices without providing the necessary factual basis or reasoning, thus failing to comply with statutory requirements. The respondents did not contest that the issue was covered by the precedent case. Consequently, the court quashed the undated order and remanded the matter back to the respondent to allow the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice. The respondent is required to provide an opportunity for a hearing and issue a fresh order in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
