9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued under section 61 stating that there was a clerical error in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 has been filed correctly and that, they also produced the necessary bills for the same. However, the respondent has not considered the same on the premise that the reply was filed beyond the stipulated time. Thus, it is evident that the respondent, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned orders, which are in violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay a 15% of the disputed tax to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty at Rs. 5,03,004/-. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner filed its reply dated 23.03.2023 enclosing the necessary bills. Despite this, the respondent issued notices on 08.05.2023, 19.07.2023 and 02.08.2023 for personal hearing of the petitioner. Subsequently, the orders dated 18.08.2023 impugned in this writ petition, came to be passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court with the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a bona fide dealer, has been regularly filing its returns and paying the taxes in accordance with law. It is further submitted that for invoking section 74 of the TNGST Act, there should be an allegation of suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on either side and perused the materials placed before this court. 7. It is an admitted fact that there was a discrepancy in respect of tax liability of the petitioner in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B for the month of July, 2021. According to the petitioner, they filed its reply dated 01.11.2022 to the notice issued under section 61 stating that there was a clerical error in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 has been filed correctly and that, they also produced the necessary bills for the same. However, the respondent has not considered the same on the premise that the reply was filed beyond the stipulated time. Thus, it is evident that the respondent, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned orders, which are in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
