Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned order passed under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside and the proceedings treated as one under section 73 so that the petitioner could seek the benefit of the amnesty scheme under section 128A.
Analysis: The petitioner was one of the co-owners of the property and identical proceedings against the other co-owners had already been dealt with by treating the matter as falling under section 73 rather than section 74. The relief granted in the earlier matter was followed here. On that footing, the impugned order was not sustained, the matter was remitted for reconsideration, and the adjudicating authority was directed to proceed under section 73 and pass orders under section 73(9). The petitioner was also permitted to apply for the amnesty scheme under section 128A, and the authority was directed to grant that benefit in accordance with law if an application was made.
Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to treat the proceedings as arising under section 73 and to consider amnesty benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual and transactional setting justifies treatment of the proceedings as one under section 73, an order passed under section 74 may be set aside and the matter remitted so that the assessee can pursue the statutory amnesty benefit available to section 73 proceedings.