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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tax demand order set aside for failing to account for 58% remittance through electronic credit ledger debit</h1> <h3>Tvl. Prabha Drug House Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), (also known as the Commercial Tax Officer) and The Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Hosur</h3> Tvl. Prabha Drug House Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), (also known as the Commercial Tax Officer) and The Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile ... The Madras High Court, through Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 which confirmed the entire tax demand arising from a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns without accounting for the petitioner's remittance of 58% of the differential amount via debit from the electronic credit ledger. The Court emphasized that 'no credit was given in respect of 58% remitted,' necessitating reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, explicitly directing that the remittances made by debiting the electronic credit ledger be taken into account. The writ petition was disposed of without notice to the second respondent (impleaded as garnishee), the bank attachment consequent to the assessment order was lifted, and no costs were imposed.