Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
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 orders dated 08.01.2024 and 29.04.2024, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, without affording the petitioner a personal hearing and relying on absence of portal filing, are violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The Court examined the procedural record and the submissions that show cause notices were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner had filed replies in person but did not upload them to the portal. The respondents conceded that no personal hearing was afforded prior to passing the impugned assessment orders. The Court applied the principle that an assessment order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing where one was feasible engages principles of natural justice. Given the admitted absence of personal hearing and the factual matrix of in-person replies, the Court found the orders to be vitiated for want of compliance with natural justice and requiring reconsideration on merits after affording opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The impugned orders dated 08.01.2024 and 29.04.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration with directions to permit the petitioner to file reply/objection within two weeks and to issue a 14 days clear notice fixing the date of personal hearing before passing appropriate orders on merits.