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 assessment, demand and appellate orders under the GST enactments could be sustained when the return and tax payment had already been filed, and the proceedings were initiated only because the filing was not communicated in the prescribed form.
Analysis: The admitted stand in the counter affidavit was that if the petitioner had intimated the authority through the prescribed Form DRC-01B after filing the return on 07.12.2020, no further proceedings would have been initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactments. The Court accepted the admitted fact that the return had already been filed and found that the continuation of the proceedings and the resulting orders were only a consequence of non-communication of that filing to the authority. In that situation, the foundation for the impugned proceedings did not survive.
Conclusion: The impugned assessment order, demand and appellate order were not sustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the tax proceedings founded solely on the communication lapse were annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the revenue itself admits that no further proceedings would have been initiated had the taxpayer communicated an already filed return in the prescribed manner, proceedings initiated and continued solely due to such non-communication cannot be sustained.