https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761468 Assessment orders under the GST regime were interfered with because they were passed without affording the assessee a hearing, despite prior notices and the assessee's negligence in responding. The High Court noted that such a breach of natural justice justified quashing and remand so the assessee could contest the demand, but only on protective terms to safeguard revenue. The petitioner was required to deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax demand in each case, file a reply, and participate in a fresh consideration with a reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing. Bank attachments were consequently raised subject to compliance with those conditions. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761468 Assessment orders under the GST regime were interfered with because they were passed without affording the assessee a hearing, despite prior notices and the assessee's negligence in responding. The High Court noted that such a breach of natural justice justified quashing and remand so the assessee could contest the demand, but only on protective terms to safeguard revenue. The petitioner was required to deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax demand in each case, file a reply, and participate in a fresh consideration with a reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing. Bank attachments were consequently raised subject to compliance with those conditions. Case-Laws GST Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761468