Loading...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....following prayer: "...to issue a writ or order more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the Order in Original No. 42/2023- 2024-Adjn (ADC)-ST, dated 20-11-2023 is null and void, illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the said order." 3. The impugned order-in-original dated 20.11.2023 relates to the tax period 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) in respect of which an earlier proceeding culminated in the order-in-original dated 24.11.2023 wherein the demand of Rs.8,96,909/- was only confirmed. Vide order dated 12.08.2024, the demand was set aside and refund of the amount deposited during the appeal was ordered. Thereafter, a garnishee notice impugned herein was issued on 13.01.2026 in respect of the petitioner'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, recovery proceedings have been initiated by the impugned garnishee notice dated 13.01.2026 under Section 87 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Department, however, has not been able to justify as to how for the same period, when adjudication had ended in favour of the assessee in appeal proceedings, independent proceedings for the alleged suppression of taxable receipts could be initiated and adjudicated upon. It, therefore, appears that the impugned proceedings have been initiated for the same tax period in respect of which the petitioner succeeded at the appellate stage and a refund was also granted. The findings of the appellate authority show that the petitioner had undertaken works exclusively to Government Dep....