Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.

Facts: The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023. The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed.