During the scrutiny of the petitioner’s monthly return, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
Madras High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for examination of disputed questions of facts since entire basis of assessment order is on the basis of erroneous/ non-existent facts.
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to reply to notice nor attended the personal hearing, it is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and post deposit of the tax an opportunity of being heard will be granted.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 and the impugned recovery notice dated 05.05.2023 passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It is mainly contested that invocation of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act as there was no suppression of facts by the petitioners.
Madras High Court held that as requested by the petitioner, an opportunity of heard will be granted on payment of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount since petitioner failed to respond to notice in DRC-01.
Assessee challenged an income tax assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144. Assessee represented a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who was Karta, Mr. M. Subramanian passed away on 15.01.2013.
Madras High Court held that it is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Thus, order against the deceased assessee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
