Case Law Details
Vinayaka Steels Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated 08.02.2022 by way of a cryptic one liner stating ‘dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far’.
5. The confirmation of proposals in the manner as aforesaid, leaves me in no doubt that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. Let notice be issued afresh, the petitioner heard and orders passed in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Ms. Amirtha Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent and is armed with instructions to enable final disposal of this matter, even at the stage of admission.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.