Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
The HC held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
