The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order ...

Court quashes assessment order due to disparity in GST returns. Petitioner agrees to pay 10% of disputed tax demand for remand.

Case Laws GST

June 20, 2024

The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and not participating in proceedings. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed demand for a remand. In the interest of justice, the court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner to contest the tax demand by placing relevant documents on record. The impugned order was set aside on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order ...

Court quashes assessment order due to disparity in GST returns. Petitioner agrees to pay 10% of disputed tax demand for remand.

Case Laws GST

June 20, 2024

You may also like:

The High Court considered the validity of an assessment order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner lacked access to the GST portal and was...

GST : 10 POINT SERIES ON SUPPLY - Goods and Services Tax - GST

The petitioner challenged the order and summary order alleging discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner...

Demand of GST - Discrepancy between the GSTR-3B returns and the auto populated GSTR-2A returns - The court observed that the tax demand solely pertained to the disparity...

Disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - error occurred on account of reflecting an amount wrongly towards CGST and SGST instead of IGST - Despite...

The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order. This was subject to the condition that the...

Order quashed due to breach of principles of natural justice as petitioner was not heard before issuance of impugned order regarding tax demand arising from disparity...

The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires...

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 aims to settle tax disputes. The term "appeal" under the Act includes writ petitions challenging tax orders, as per Supreme...

Prosecution u/s 276C (2) - petitioners had delayed to pay self-assessment tax - The High Court held that delayed payment of income tax does not amount to tax evasion if...

Imposition of GST on trade payables - challenge on the ground that the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and the entire trade payables...

Levy of penalty u/s 129(5) of GST Act for discrepancy between PIN code of petitioner in Tax Invoices and E-Way Bill. Court held minor discrepancy in PIN code in GST...

This circular clarifies the regularization of refund of IGST availed in contravention of rule 96(10) of Assam GST Rules, 2017, where exporters had imported inputs...

Input tax credit of GST paid - The applicant is not eligible for availment of input tax credit of GST paid on goods and services for laying of transfer pipeline and the...

This circular clarifies GST rates and classification for certain goods based on recommendations of the GST Council's 54th meeting. Key points: Extruded/expanded savoury...

Quick Updates: