Tamil Nadu Grama Bank challenges EPF assessment order in Madras HC, claiming exemption based on its own pension scheme under the Employees’ Provident Funds Act.
Madras High Court held that granting third hearing mandatory when petitioner has specifically sought for the same. Order set aside and matter remanded back since third hearing not granted.
During the relevant period, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. While scrutinizing the petitioner’s monthly return, it was noticed that there was mismatch between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A/2B.
Madras High Court held that assessee is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount since the assessee was unable to access GST portal and respond to the notice issued. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Madras HC held that passing of order without providing opportunity of personal hearing is against principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order set aside and directed to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to establish their case on merits.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to respond to notice issued for mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and non-payment of interest, it is directed that opportunity to explain discrepancies will be granted on payment of 25% of disputed tax.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 245I, the Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution doesn’t permit Court to decide the dispute between two private parties. Accordingly, writ dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail civil remedy.
Held that the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Madras High Court held that expenditure claimed as capital expenditure cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure in the computation of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.
