9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and it is just to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case. The Assessment Order bearing Ref.No.ZD330424197172H dated 25.04.2024 passed by the first respondent and the Communication dated 25.09.2024 addressed to the second respondent by the first respondent are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After making such payment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 74 of the Act. After the receipt of said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner vide Reply dated 27.03.2024, clarified that he had mistakenly entered B2C Sales in GSTR 1 and requested to drop the demand. However, without accepting the said reply, the first respondent passed the Assessment Order bearing Ref.No.ZD330424197172H dated 25.04.2024 under Section 74 of the Act, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 53,88,494/- by 24.07.2024. 4.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Rectification Petition on 18.07.2024 stating that turnover for the year 2018-2019 was mistakenly mentioned as Rs. 2,47,94,015/- instead of Rs. 8,752.82/- in B2C of GSTR1 for the month of March 2019, whereas, the tax amount proposed is for 9 times more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent by the first respondent. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent prayed this Court to remand the matter back to the first respondent on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. As far as this case is concerned, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned assessment order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and it is just to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
