Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.