The court ruled that submitting a reply in the form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9), and 76(3) of the GST Act. Additionally, the court emphasized that a reply sent through postal means should also be considered valid.
The High Court not only declared the order as erroneous but also directed the tax authorities to donate Rs10,000 to the PM CARES Fund. The court highlighted that the show-cause notice provided only seven days to respond, and the order was passed on the eighth day. Consequently, the court reasoned that the taxpayer could not be held liable for not paying the tax along with interest within 30 days of the notice’s issuance.
The recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of M/s. Great Heights Developers LLP v. Additional Commissioner Office of the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition No. 1324 of 2024 dated February 01, 2024], marks a significant development in the realm of tax law.
In the case of Chukkath Krishnan Praveen vs. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has issued a directive instructing tax authorities to entertain rectification requests for errors in GSTR-3B filings.
more reasonable timeframe of 3 months for the assessee to make the payment. If the payment was not completed within this extended period, the revenue authority retained the right to initiate recovery proceedings.
The Patna High Court has clarified that the direct invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible when a taxpayer neglects to file a statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST).