9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity - mismatch of input tax claim under Section 73(5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that notice was issued by the respondent but however, the case was handled by his accountant who did not attend the personal hearing. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that a total tax liability of Rs. 5,89,004/- has been imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner will pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. If this condition is not complied with, the order passed by the respondent will stand automatically revived. This writ petition is allowed. - Honourable Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Vikramkumar For the Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input tax claim under Section 73(5) of the Act. 6.The grievance of the petitioner is that they had an accountant and the entire documents were available with the accountant and since he was not doing well, he was not able to attend the hearing. The petitioner was also unaware of the issuance of the demand order. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed before this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner to the effect that there was no mismatch of the input tax claim between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. 9.This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in WP.No.26477 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024. This Court wanted to afford an opportunity to the petitioner therein by putting the petitioner on terms. In order to maintain consistency, a similar order can be passed in this writ petition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
