The Court permitted filing of a statutory appeal against a Section 73 GST assessment after rectification was rejected. Relief was granted on condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court held that though portal upload is valid service, failure to provide effective opportunity and personal hearing vitiated the assessment order.
The Court ruled that personal liability under Section 89 cannot be invoked without giving the director an opportunity to prove absence of negligence. Bank attachment without notice violated natural justice.
The Court quashed a composite assessment order, holding that Sections 73 and 74 require separate show cause notices for each financial year due to distinct limitation periods.
The High Court recorded that the new PAN had been cancelled and directed the petitioner to apply for restoration of the old PAN. The Income Tax Department was asked to provide a copy of the cancellation order.
The Court held that attachment cannot be sustained where the property was transferred prior to issuance of the prohibitory order. Registration was directed without insisting on a tax NOC.
The Madras High Court set aside GST assessment orders issued in the name of a taxpayer who had died prior to issuance of notice. The Court held such orders are non-est in law and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings.
The Madras High Court condoned a 150-day delay in filing a GST appeal, accepting the explanation of accountant’s lapse. The Court directed payment of an additional 10% of disputed tax before hearing the appeal on merits.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration and directed portal modifications to enable compliance. ITC utilization was restricted pending departmental scrutiny.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST demand matter for fresh adjudication after rectification of place of supply and dispute over tax reversal. The Court directed full pre-deposit of admitted and disputed tax before reconsideration.
