|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 681 to 700 of 13912 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 129
Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to summary order issued under GST Act without a detailed order - Attachment of the bank accounts - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the summary order dated 06.01.2020 at Annexure A to the petition it only says the order No. b612, tax period order dated 06.01.2020, financial year : 2019/20 and tax period :01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 and issues involved is shown as DRC-1 and description of goods is HSN 72042190 and description shown is scrap and the details of demand is also mentioned having total of Rs. 2,16,14,681/-.
On perusal of the above summary of the order, again a query was raised to learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dave to make a statement at bar that there is no detail order in existence on the record of the respondents which is passed on 06.01.2020. Therefore, in absence of any order, for which, the summary of the order was issued on 25.01.2020, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly, the summary of the order dated 25.01.2020 in FORM GST DRC-01 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequent action for the recovery on the basis of such summary of the order in absence of any detailed order passed under any of the provisions of the GST Act is also hereby quashed and set aside including the attachment of any of the bank accounts of the petitioner.
The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order for lifting the attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner forthwith - the petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 128
Cancellation of its GST registration with retrospective effect - incomplete SCN - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is material to note that the SCN did not specifically propose cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect. It is also material to note that the SCN mentioned that in the event the petitioner did not appear for a personal hearing at the appointed date and time, the case would be decided ex-parte on the basis of available records and on merits. However, no date of a personal hearing was communicated to the petitioner. As noted, the SCN does not mention any appointed date or time for a personal hearing - the decision of the proper officer to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect falls foul of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner also questions the grounds on which the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. According to the SCN, the petitioner’s registration was proposed to be cancelled as the petitioner’s address was not traceable. However, the petitioner has annexed a copy of an electricity bill reflecting the same address.
The present petition is disposed off by directing that the impugned cancellation order shall take effect from 15.06.2022. The impugned cancellation order is modified to the said extent.
-
2024 (10) TMI 127
Wrongful availment of input tax credit (ITC) in respect of the exempted supplies - It is alleged in the SCN that the petitioner had not declared the correct tax value in filing its annual return under the FORM GSTR-09 - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that remanding a matter to the concerned authority has the effect of providing further time of two years for the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the SCN. In the aforesaid manner the authority has effectively frustrated the legislative provisions stipulating the period of limitation for adjudicating the assessments.
In similar matters in KHEMKA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 1 & ORS. [2024 (8) TMI 700 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the respondents had made a statement that if the matter is remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority, the same would be disposed of within a period of six months from date.
The impugned order is set aside - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider it afresh - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 126
Cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect - impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration - whether cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is warranted for the reason as set out in the SCN? - violation of principle sof natural justice - HELD THAT:- The only reason set out in the said SCN for proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration is failure to pay tax, interest or penalty within a period of three months from the date on which the said amount became due - However, that is not one of the reasons available under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) for cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration.
It is apparent to note that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration - It is also important to note that the impugned order sets out a tabular statement, which indicates that no amount has been determined as payable by the petitioner.
The impugned order has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Although the SCN called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing at the appointed date and time, no such date or time was indicated. Thus, in effect the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 125
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - petitioner has failed to communicate about the impugned proceedings to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the respondent.
The impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today (12.09.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 124
Principles of natural justice - non-consideration of the petitioner’s replies - HELD THAT:- Even in the matters, although the petitioner had filed replies, they were not considered, and the impugned orders were passed without providing sufficient reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s explanations. In view of the above, the orders impugned herein are set aside. The petitioner shall file their replies/objections along with any required documents to the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt, the respondent shall issue a 14-day clear notice, schedule a personal hearing, and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.
These writ petitions are disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 123
Levy of GST on the supply of the cotton seed oil cake on the ground of the same being exempt under Entry No. 102 of N/N. 2 of 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was not liable to pay the VAT into Pre-GST Regime on the sale of cotton seed oil cake as the same was exempted as cattle feed. The GST Act has subsumed the earlier VAT Act and as per the Entry No. 102 of Notification No. 2 of 2017, it clearly provides for exemption to levy of GST on cattle feed. Even on perusal of the show-cause notice, it is revealed that the respondent Authority has reproduced objections raised by the Audit Party which clearly shows that the Audit Party while considering the replies made by the petitioner during the course of Audit and deliberations on the issues though recorded that the petitioner was not able to prove or state the status of the cotton seed oil cake purchasers with GSTIN but such purchasers also declined to pay up the tax on such outward supplies with the contention that since end use of the cotton seed oil cakes is only for cattle feed the product has to be exempted, meaning thereby that the merely the supply of the cotton seed oil cake to the traders would not determine the levy of GST as end use of cattle feed is not in dispute.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. GOPSONS PAPERS LTD. & ANR. [2015 (10) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT] has therefore, in such circumstances in the facts of the said case held that end use of the product at the ends of the purchaser is not the concern of the assessee and cannot be the consideration for classifying the goods in question.
It is opined that in the facts of the case when the petitioner has made supply of the cotton seed oil cake as cattle feed, the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Serial No. 102 of Exemption Notification No. 2 of 2017.
The impugned orders dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 122
Levy of GST in relation to the annuity being received by the petitioner - date on which the liability to pay G.S.T. would arise - HELD THAT:- The annuity payable to the petitioner is fixed in the concession agreement, dated 18.01.2018. There is a difference of opinion on the question of when such liability would arise.
The assessing authority and the appellate authority have taken the view that the said time of supply of services should be treated as on the date on which the concession period had commenced as the annuity is based for maintenance of the road and management of the said road with the said responsibility commencing from the date of the concession period.
The issue as to whether the view of the petitioner is to be accepted or whether the view of the assessing authority and the appellate authority is to be accepted is now settled in view of the circular dated 26.06.2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of indirect taxes and Customs bearing No. 221/15/2024-GST. In this circular, the C.B.I.C. has taken the view that the tax is payable at the time of issuance of invoice or receipt of payments of annuity, whichever is earlier.
The orders are set aside with a direction to the respondent authorities to collect tax in accordance with the circular issued by the C.B.I.C. - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 121
Blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST /SGST Rules 2017 without any just cause or reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the authority who issued Ext. P7 / P9 and seek lifting of the orders blocking the credit to the tune of Rs. 1,77,250/- for the reasons indicated above. Since the petitioner has already filed Ext.P8, if the petitioner were to approach the authority who issued Ext. P9 (c), the matter shall be adjudicated by the said authority.
Considering the difficulties pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the competent authority shall adjudicate the matter as contemplated by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 86A within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
-
2024 (10) TMI 120
Seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to release the goods belonging to the petitioner - Attempt to evade tax - HELD THAT:- The issues raised by the petitioner as reasons for the goods being transported in a vehicle other than the vehicle mentioned in the e-way bill and for the expiry of the e-way bill are matters that ought to have been considered by the competent authorities before imposing a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts. If there was no attempt to evade tax and the discrepancies noted were on account of reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, this was also a matter that ought to have been considered by the original authority / Appellate Authority while passing orders.
Though the petitioner may be justified in approaching this Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority on account of the fact that the Tribunal has not been constituted under the provisions of Section 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts since the adjudication of the issues involve disputed questions of fact it may not be proper for this Court to entertain a challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The appeal filed by the petitioner will stand restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders, after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Ext.P7 order is quashed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 119
Challenge to assessment order and summary of assessment order - violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically provided under the provisions of Section 75 (4) of Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 75 (4) specifically provided that prior to completion of assessment, an opportunity for hearing is to be extended, when the assessee makes a specific request in that regard in writing before the assessing authority.
In the case at hand, the fact that such a request is made by the petitioner is not in dispute. Furthermore, the show cause notice which culminated in the assessment order has created a demand in excess of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Section 75 (4) mandates an opportunity of hearing when any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Insofar as a demand in excess of Rs. 30,00,000/- is created against the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the second respondent to have provided the petitioner a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing. Insofar as there is no evidence to prove that the notice fixing the hearing on 16.04.2024 was actually served on the petitioner, there are no reason to sustain the order at Ext. P6.
This writ petition is allowed, by quashing Ext. P6 assessment order issued by the second respondent herein. The second respondent would issue a fresh notice, intimating the petitioner as regards the opportunity for personal hearing, under the provisions of Section 75 (4).
-
2024 (10) TMI 118
Seeking quashing of the impugned order of adjudication - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The judgment of this Court in R.S. MARKETING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BENGALURU [2024 (6) TMI 889 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], is directly and squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the present petition deserves to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law.
In so far as the dismissal of the appeal before respondent No. 2 - Appellate Authority, it is well settled that if an appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as barred by limitation, is not an appeal in the eye of law and there would not be any merger of the original order into the order of the Appellate Authority so as to prevent this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Merely because respondent No. 2-Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, since there is no adjudication on merits and the appeal has been summarily dismissed only on the ground of limitation, the said order of dismissal of the appeal on 23.04.2024 as barred by limitation cannot come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such, this contention of the respondent cannot be accepted.
The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside - matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh - Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 117
Violation of principles of natural justice - It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of notifying the petitioner about the dates of personal hearing and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte order dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not appear - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the representation at Annexure-E dated 06.02.2024, which was served on the respondent on 07.02.2024 will indicate that the petitioner had subsequently requested the respondent to notify the petitioner about the date of personal hearing by intimating the same to the E-mail id of the petitioner as indicated in the said letter/representation.
In this context, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that despite referring to the aforesaid letter/representation received on 07.02.2024, the respondent did not notify the petitioner or to his E-mail id as stated in the said letter/representation and merely noticed that the petitioner remained absent on 20.02.2024 and 01.03.2024 and proceeded to pass the impugned exparte order, which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition and by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 28.03.2024 along with the impugned Form GST APL-04 dated 28.03.2024 at Annexure-F1 issued/passed by the respondent are hereby set aside - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 116
Challenge to notices issued - petitioner contends that thesnotices, issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, are flawed due to the improper consolidation of multiple tax periods into a single SCN - petitioner’s primary argument is that the respondent cannot issue a common show cause notice by grouping the tax periods from 2019 to 2023-24 - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2019 to 2023-24.
Section 73(10) of the CGST Act mandates a specific time limit from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax due relates. The law stipulates that particular actions must be completed within a designated year, and such actions should be executed in accordance with the law's provisions.
This Court concludes that the show cause notices issued by the respondent are fundamentally flawed. The practice of issuing a single, consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years contravenes the provisions of the CGST Act and established legal precedents.
The impugned SCN dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure-F) and the summary of the SCN dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent for the tax periods 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 115
Exemption from payment of service tax/GST in terms of the N/N. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 - practicing advocates - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the materials, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner’s case is covered under the notification dated 20.06.2012 and therefore, he is not entitled for payment of tax. Such fact was also brought to the notice of the authority by way of a representation by the petitioner and the fact also remains the same that in similar circumstances the appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Taxes interfered with such decision.
This court is of the view that while issuing the notice and doing the recovery, the authority had acted without jurisdiction and therefore, there shall be no bar to exercise the power of Article 226 in the given facts of the present case.
The notice dated 30.03.2022 as well as the recovery notice dated 06.06.2024 are set aside and quashed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 114
Validity of the impugned order u/s 107(11) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 - case of petitioner is that the adjudicating authority without resorting to any action against the supplier who was the selling dealer, has ignored the tax invoices produced, ignored the payment of tax and has gone against the purchaser, which is illegal, arbitrary, and the same is liable to be quashed - HELD THAT:- In the present case after it was found by the revenue that there were certain violations/anomalies by the supplier and the dealer with regard to payment of tax returns audit was conducted. By virtue of the judgment in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT], it is held that the purchasing dealers have to prove the actual physical movement of the goods unless they have been purchased from their respective dealers and if the respective purchasing dealer fails to establish and prove the important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased from the concerned dealers on which the ITC has been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claims, though in the present case the petitioner has produced documents to show that there is existence of the supplier and he is continuing his business by virtue of a separate GST number and has also now produced along with a memo photograph showing some of the godowns belonging to the supplier.
The fact remains that the goods that was moved and purchased from the supplier to the purchaser, the vehicles in which it was moved have not been traced and those appear to be fraudulent and not registered before the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the provisions of section 16 (2) (c) (d) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Whether the tax charge in respect of supplier actually has been paid to the Government, either in cash or through utilization of Input Tax Credit admissible in respect of the said supply would have to be proved by the purchaser as contemplated under section 155 of the Act, which says where any person claims that he is eligible for Input Tax Credit under this Act, the burden of proving such claim shall lie upon such person.
The law contemplates that the supplier ought to have filed the returns and paid the tax and if he has stopped payment of tax, the revenue is at liberty and by law entitled to recover from the purchaser, initiate proceedings against the purchaser in accordance with law and the ITC claimed by the petitioner ought to have paid to the Government by the supplier for having paid the tax to the revenue. Hence the same has been rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer which is confirmed by the appellate authority. Therefore, there are no anomaly, illegality or discrepancy in the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of the respondent No.7.
The order that is questioned herein is not tainted with any malice, arbitrariness, illegality or capriciousness - the writ petition lacks merit for consideration.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 113
Profiteering - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC on the supply of construction service by the Respondent, on implementation of GST w.e.f.01.07.2017 or not - Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The DGAP has verified the documents submitted by the Respondent as well as the statutory returns filed by him and revealed that the Respondent had opted for GST @ 5% without ITC in terms of Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate)dated 29.03.2019 and reversed all the ITC available pertaining to the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 from April, 2019 onwards and he had also reversed ITC availed in compliance with Rule 37 of the CGST Rules,2017,due to delay of more than 180 days in making payments to the suppliers for the value of supply along with tax, from the date of issuance of the invoices by the respective suppliers. He had also reversed the excess amount of ITC availed wrongly due to a clerical mistake, which resulted in a negative credit during the post-GST period. Therefore, the Respondent has not retained any ITC related to ‘lreo Waterfront’ project and reversed all the ineligible ITC pertaining to the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.
It can be concluded that post-GST, no benefit of additional ITC accrued to the Respondent in respect of the project “Ireo Waterfront”. Therefore, the Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the Respondent’s project “Ireo Waterfront”. The proceedings in the present case are accordingly dropped.
-
2024 (10) TMI 112
Profiteering - failure to pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is one hundred rupees or less” by way of commensurate reduction in price - Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - penalty.
HELD THAT:- The Respondent has resorted to profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the service while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of the service commensurately, despite a reduction in GST rate, on “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is above one hundred rupees” from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is less than one hundred rupees” from 18% to 12% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 upto 30.06.2019. On this account, the Respondent has realised an additional amount to the tune of Rs. 4,65,549/- from the recipients which included both the profiteered amount and GST on the said profiteered amount. Thus, the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 4,65,549/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. As per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the prices of his tickets, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients.
As per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the prices of his tickets, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients. The Respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,65,549/- along with the interest to be calculated @ 18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount is deposited. Since the recipients, in this case, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit the amount of profiteering in two equal parts, of Rs. 2,32,774.5/- in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) and Rs. 2,32,774.5/- in the Telangana State Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, along with interest @18%. The above amount shall be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same shall be recovered by the jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST as per the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to his customers/recipients in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. However, perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A), under which liability for penalty arises for the above violation, shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019 when the Respondent had committed the above violation. Hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively for the said period.
Further, the Commission in terms of Rule 136 of the CGST Rules, 2017 directs the jurisdictional Commissioners of CGST/SGST, Telangana to monitor compliance with this Order under the supervision of the DGAP, by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by this Commission is deposited in the respective Consumer Welfare Funds along with interest thereon. A report regarding compliance of this order shall be submitted to this Commission by the DGAP within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 41
Refund of IGST paid in regard to the goods exported by the petitioner - petitioner has exported the goods but inadvertently did not include the amount of IGST paid by the petitioner in Form GSTR-1 for the relevant month - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent authorities to immediately act and manually process the refund payable to the petitioner as claimed in this petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 40
Grant of stay of the proceedings subject to the payment of 10% balance amount of the disputed tax - whether the appellate authority was justified in enhancing the tax liability payable by the appellant/assessee in an appeal filed by the assessee without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the tax which was quantified by the assessing officer is Rs.2,58,536.80. However, while imposing the penalty the assessing officer imposed penalty on the sum of Rs.41,83,804.72/- - This order was put to challenge by filing a statutory appeal.
The appellate authority was required to consider as to whether the tax liability fixed by the adjudicating authority at Rs.2,58,536.80 is correct and whether the penalty is to be levied on the total amount of Rs.41,83,804.72. However, the appellate authority while passing the order has suo motu enhanced the tax liability on the amount payable by the appellant without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the Act - the order passed by the appellate authority to that extent is not tenable in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
The order passed by the appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority is set aside and the matter stands remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration - Petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
