Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
