9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - petitioner was not aware of proceedings, and could not participate in the same - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the tax prayer did not respond to the show cause notice by filing objections. The impugned order indicates that the personal hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Ms. Aparna Nandakumar For the Respondents : Mr. C. Harsha Raj, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1, Mr.Ramesh Kutty Standing Senior Counsel for R2 ORDER By this writ petition, an order in original dated 30.10.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. The petitioner ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.Ramesh Kutty, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. 5. Mr.C.Harsha Raj submits that the reminders were sent to the petitioner through RPAD and that such reminder was received by the petitioner on 01.06.2023. Mr.Ramesh Kutty also points out that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without the petitioner being heard and liability was imposed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments. In these facts and circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 15% of the disputed tax demand as a condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
