Assessment Order not sustainable when vague in nature

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. RAINBOW STONES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V. EDUKONDALU VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , HOSUR - 2024 (2) TMI 1290 - MADRAS HIGH COURT  allowed the writ petition, thereby setting aside the Assessment Order on the ground that the order is vague in nature and devoid of proper reasoning.

Facts:

Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. has filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated December 31, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) based on the difference between the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) claimed in GSTR-3B and reflected under GSTR-2A. The Petitioner contended that the Impugned order passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) is vague in nature as the only observation recorded in the Impugned Order is that the reply filed by the Petitioner is not acceptable.

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. RAINBOW STONES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V. EDUKONDALU VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , HOSUR - 2024 (2) TMI 1290 - MADRAS HIGH COURT set aside the Impugned Order as the Respondent Assessing Officer on the ground that, the Impugned Order is vague in nature, based on which the demand of tax, interest and penalty was confirmed. The Hon’ble High Court directed that matter be remanded back for reconsideration and passing of fresh order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])