Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Crystal Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W. P. No.12540 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Crystal Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)

Crystal Granites filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 05.01.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) enactments. The crux of the challenge was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of proceedings leading to the issuance of the impugned order.

The petitioner contended that they were not adequately informed about the show cause notice and subsequent proceedings. They argued that the notice and order were solely uploaded on the GST portal under the “view additional notices and order” tab, without any additional communication via other means. This, according to the petitioner, deprived them of a reasonable opportunity to respond and participate effectively in the adjudication process.

In response, the learned counsel for Crystal Granites submitted that the proceedings were also flawed because they did not satisfy the conditions stipulated under Section 74 of the GST enactments. Specifically, they asserted that the tax demand in question arose from discrepancies between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, and contended that these discrepancies did not warrant the issuance of the impugned order.

During the hearing, Mr. V. Prasanth Kiran, representing the Government, acknowledged the receipt of notice and defended the issuance of the impugned order. He argued that a show cause notice had indeed been issued to Crystal Granites, followed by a personal hearing offered in November 2023. He further maintained that the order was well within the statutory provisions of Section 74, thus refuting the petitioner’s claim that the proceedings were time-barred.

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Your email address will not be published.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