9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner towards price difference was treated as taxable supply under the applicable GST enactments - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that tax demands under six heads were considered therein. Proceedings were preceded by a show cause notice to which the petitioner replied. A personal hearing was admittedly provided to the petitioner. The issue on which learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a copy of this order. - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghav Rajeev for M/s. Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys For the Respondents: Mr. C.Harsha Raj, AGP (T) ORDER An assessment order dated 21.12.2023 is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards price difference was treated as tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x on that basis. 3. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that the petitioner should have placed all relevant documents in order to establish that the price difference was not liable to tax under applicable GST enactments. He further submits that the adjudication of this issue entails examination of disputed questions of fact. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation, without condonation, expired on or about 21.03.2024. The petitioner is still within the condonable period. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate that if the petitioner files an appeal within a reasonable period, such appeal be considered and disposed of on merits. 6. Hence, W.P.No.8186 of 2024 is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
