Select Design
You can update Firmname, Logo, Profession, Mobile, Email, Address from Profile.
High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations
Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
20-03-2024
W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample 