Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Renaatus Projects Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 10698 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Renaatus Projects Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

Renaatus Projects Private Limited took legal action against the State Tax Officer over an order dated 23.12.2023, alleging violations of natural justice principles and errors in the record. The company, engaged in works contracts and turnkey projects, argued that it couldn’t respond to the show cause notice due to unawareness of the proceedings. The petition highlighted discrepancies between the show cause notice’s tax proposal and the confirmed tax demand in the order. Specifically, the order erroneously computed tax based on the combined turnover from the profit and loss account and the GSTR 9 return, instead of considering the difference between them. The petitioner provided explanations and a reconciliation statement, but these were allegedly overlooked.

The government’s stance was that the petitioner was adequately notified and had multiple opportunities to contest the tax demand. They contested the petitioner’s claim of unawareness, citing the company’s corporate status. However, the court noted the oversight in considering documents like the GSTR 9C reconciliation statement and deemed it necessary to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 2.50 crore within four weeks. Within this period, the petitioner can submit a reply to the show cause notice along with relevant documents. Upon receipt of the reply and confirmation of the remittance, the tax officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no costs incurred.

In summary, the court directed reconsideration of the tax demand, emphasizing the importance of addressing the petitioner’s submissions and ensuring procedural fairness.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031