https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760918 An adjudication order based on facts not borne out by the taxpayer's reply, and passed without properly considering that reply, is liable to interference. The Madras HC found that the impugned order proceeded on an assertion that input tax credit had been reversed in the GSTR-9 return, although the show cause reply did not say so, showing non-consideration of the reply. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, with opportunity to file a detailed reply, produce supporting documents, and be heard personally, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:08:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760918 An adjudication order based on facts not borne out by the taxpayer's reply, and passed without properly considering that reply, is liable to interference. The Madras HC found that the impugned order proceeded on an assertion that input tax credit had been reversed in the GSTR-9 return, although the show cause reply did not say so, showing non-consideration of the reply. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, with opportunity to file a detailed reply, produce supporting documents, and be heard personally, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand. Case-Laws GST Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760918