https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758642 Assessment orders confirming GST demand were set aside where the assessee had not been given an effective opportunity to object on merits, including a meaningful chance to explain the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch. The Madras High Court noted that the tax proposal had been confirmed for non-filing of objections and non-participation in personal hearing, but found that the absence of proper hearing justified interference. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication on terms requiring deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment period, filing of a reply, and grant of personal hearing before new orders were passed, with consequential release of bank attachments. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 May 2025 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758642 Assessment orders confirming GST demand were set aside where the assessee had not been given an effective opportunity to object on merits, including a meaningful chance to explain the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch. The Madras High Court noted that the tax proposal had been confirmed for non-filing of objections and non-participation in personal hearing, but found that the absence of proper hearing justified interference. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication on terms requiring deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment period, filing of a reply, and grant of personal hearing before new orders were passed, with consequential release of bank attachments. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758642