9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner placed on record the GSTR 3B returns for several months. On comparing the impugned order against the GSTR 3B return for the month of May 2022-2023, it is evident that the turnover reflected in one single month has been compared with the turnover reflected in the GSTR 7 return filed by the counter party. Given the fact that the GSTR 7 return is an annual return, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed off. - THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Vijayakumar For the Respondent: Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (Tax) ORDER An assessment order dated 07.09.2023 is assailed on the grounds of breach of the principles of natural justice and failure to consider all the GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of June in the same assessment period, he points out that the total taxable value of supply was Rs. 5,47,200/-. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the assessing officer erred by only taking into account the petitioner's GSTR-3B return for the month of May for the assessment period 2022-2023. He also submits that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the comparison made by the adjudicating authority is undoubtedly unsustainable. At the same time, it should be noticed that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities but failed to respond to either the notice in GSTR ASMT-10 or the show cause notice. 6. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
