Ex-parte order - Quantification of Liability - intention of ...

Court Rules GST Tax Liability Must Be Assessed u/s 74, Overturns Section 130 Quantification for Fair Hearing.

April 27, 2024

Case Laws GST HC

Ex-parte order - Quantification of Liability - intention of evade GST - improper accounting of goods - The High court agrees with the petitioner's contention regarding the impermissibility of quantifying tax liability under Section 130 of the Act. Referring to a previous judgment, the court emphasizes that tax liability should be determined according to the provisions of Section 74. Therefore, the court rules that the quantification of tax liability under Section 130 is unsustainable. - Considering the gravity of the matter and the principle of natural justice, the court sets aside the ex parte order and directs the authority to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned order.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Ex-parte order - Quantification of Liability - intention of ...

Court Rules GST Tax Liability Must Be Assessed u/s 74, Overturns Section 130 Quantification for Fair Hearing.

April 27, 2024

Case Laws GST HC

You may also like:

Supplementary refund of unutilized input tax credit pertaining to Compensatory Cess - Section 164 of the GST Act empowers the Government to frame rules. Refund of...

The Allahabad High Court addressed the denial of a personal hearing in a tax assessment case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such hearings u/s 75(4) of the U.P. GST...

Petitioner sought regular bail in case involving alleged wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed using fictitious invoices from non-existent/suspicious firms. As per...

HC quashed assessment order due to procedural non-compliance under Section 74 of TN GST Act, 2017. AO failed to determine tax liability and disregarded Commissioner's...

The High Court quashed refund rejection orders for lack of opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, violating principles of...

Validity of intimation of tax ascertained u/s 74(1),(5) - Threat of recovery - There is a vast difference between Rule 142(1)(a) and Rule 142 (1A) of the Rules....

Excess stock found during survey triggered initiation of proceedings against petitioner. Court held if excess stock found, proceedings u/ss 73/74 of GST Act should be...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

The petitioner contested a demand raised against them u/s 74 of the GST Act for a substantial amount, claiming that the order was passed without affording them an...

Challenge to show cause notice u/s 74 of Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding classification of product manufactured by petitioner under HSN...

The case pertains to a violation of the principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner's right to an opportunity for personal hearing, as provided under the law,...

Goods and services Tax Rules, 2017 (GST Rules)

Refund claim of service tax paid on cancelled transactions - Post GST era - Rejection of refund under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules read with Sec 142(5) of CGST Act -...

The High Court quashed the orders dated 01.02.2022 and 24.04.2024 passed against the petitioner u/s 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner had availed input tax credit by...

The petitioner sought restoration of its GST registration under the trade name 'Shri Salasar Balaji Steel'. The court directed the respondent authorities to confirm the...

Quick Updates: