https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758246 Discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B were raised in relation to the demand, but the assessee contended that the shortfall had already been discharged through GSTR-09 and sought another hearing. The Madras HC quashed the impugned demand order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with law, treating the quashed order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The remand was made conditional on the assessee depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 23:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758246 Discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B were raised in relation to the demand, but the assessee contended that the shortfall had already been discharged through GSTR-09 and sought another hearing. The Madras HC quashed the impugned demand order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with law, treating the quashed order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The remand was made conditional on the assessee depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time. Case-Laws GST Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758246