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>Order set aside on excess IGST and late fee; petitioner must deposit 25% disputed tax and file reply</h1> <h3>Tvl. Sri Thirumurugan Agro Tech, Represented by its Proprietor, A. Senthil Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Dindigul</h3> HC quashed the impugned order concerning excess IGST claim and late fee liability for failure to consider the petitioner's reply, subject to the ... Excess claim of IGST in GSTR 10, late fee liability - petitioner submits a reply to the show cause notice in respect of all aspects and the same has not been considered in the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order stands quashed subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, in cash to the Electronic Cash Register, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order within such time. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice. The respondents shall endeavour to pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner. Petition disposed off. Writ petition challenging impugned order dated 17.02.2025 for tax period April 2020-March 2021. Petitioner failed to reply to Form GST DRC 01 show cause notice dated 25.11.2024; a belated reply was filed but not accepted. Petitioner contended impugned order addressed only excess IGST claim in GSTR-10 and late fee, leaving apportionment between exempted turnover and taxable turnover unadjudicated. Statutory limitation for appeal expired on 16.05.2025; condonable period expired on 16.06.2025; writ filed on 28.08.2025. Relied authorities: Singh Enterprises v. CCE (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (2020 SCC Online SC 440) that 'the appeal cannot be entertained beyond the statutory period of limitation.' Impugned order is set aside but 'stands quashed subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, in cash to the Electronic Cash Register, within a period of 30 days.' Petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice; impugned order to be treated as 'addendum to the show cause notice' and fresh order to be passed after hearing. Non-compliance will render writ dismissed and leave respondents to proceed under GST enactments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
