Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
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 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
