|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 2178 Records
-
2023 (11) TMI 357
Actionable claim or not - betting and gambling - petitioners’ platform used for gaming - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the authorities while purporting to seek an explanation from the petitioner prima facie observed that the nature of services rendered was ‘actionable claims’ and therefore Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has contended that no useful purpose will be served in responding to the show cause notice.
The question whether online gaming as so done by the petitioner would tantamount to betting/gambling requires to be considered in extenso - Hence, notice returnable on 17.01.2024.
-
2023 (11) TMI 356
100% EOU - Interpretation of the notifications - Classification of mango pulp - to be classified under HSM 08.04 or not - HELD THAT:- RULE returnable on 01.12.2023.
Ms. Hetvi Sancheti learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of all respondents in Special Civil Application No. 21706 of 2023 and for respondent no. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 21700 of 2023.
-
2023 (11) TMI 355
Collection of GST by the respondent (service provider) wrongly - Amount collected by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) - Course fees - applicability of notifications dated 15.01.2021, 15.02.2021 and 19.08.2021 - HELD THAT:- A part of GST collected by the NBE is still available with the NBE, however, bulk of GST collected has been remitted to the hospitals along with the course fee - In view of the above, the petitioners’ contention that the impugned notifications are liable to set aside, is merited.
The affidavit filed by NBE indicates that there are two three transactions which have not been traced to the candidates. The NBE shall make all efforts to trace the said transactions to the concerned candidates and upon identifying the candidates, take steps to ensure that the GST collected is refunded to them. In the event, the GST is available with the NBE, it will be refunded to them immediately. In cases where the GST has been transferred to hospitals, the same would abide by the directions as issued.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2023 (11) TMI 354
Seeking enlargement of bail - Government has been duped of revenue worth Rs.7/- Crores and more - creation of fictitious firm to avail fake input tax credit - forged documents - HELD THAT:- The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is also filed. Having regard to the same as well as the punishment prescribed for the offence and also the fact that offence alleged against the applicant is triable by learned Magistrate and the trial is not likely to commence in near future, the present application deserves consideration and accordingly stands allowed. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the conditions imposed.
Application allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 353
Rejection of refund claim - refund denied on the ground that the Department is in the process of filing an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- Inspite of the fact that the order was never appealed against and a period of more than 1 year 4 months have almost gone by, the State has chosen not to refund the amount while passing the impugned order. The writ petition first came up for hearing on 03.07.2023 and an opportunity was given to the State to submit whether an appeal had been filed or not. More time was taken on 21.07.2023 and 29.09.2023 and proceedings had been deferred. However, the appeal has still not been filed.
In such circumstances, it is clear that the State is only dilly-delaying on the issue and merely on account of the fact that the State is in the process of filing an appeal, we do not feel that the State is justified in divesting the petitioner of his fruits of litigation which have accrued to him despite a period of 1 year 3 months having gone by.
The State is directed to refund the amount due within 2 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order - petition allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 352
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - principal place of business was not found / available at the time of the field visit - validity of SCN - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s contention regarding the impugned SCN being in violation of Rule 25 of the CGST Rules has not been addressed. The petitioner also asserts that it is carrying on the business from its principal place of business and if a proper investigation is carried out, the same would be confirmed.
The impugned order dated 17.10.2023 is set aside and matter remanded to the Proper Officer to consider the petitioner’s application for revocation of order cancelling its GST registration, afresh - petition disposed off by way of remand,
-
2023 (11) TMI 351
Rejection of Refund claim - rejection on the ground that, one of the suppliers, was non-existent at its registered place of business - rejection also on the ground that the documents submitted by the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner had paid for the goods and services within a period of 180 days from the date of the invoices.
HELD THAT:- It is material to note that the show cause notices issued to the petitioner by the Adjudicating Authority did not propose to reject the refund applications on the ground that it had made payments for the supplies beyond the period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issuance of invoices. Thus, the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority proceed on a ground, which was not put to the petitioner at the material time. The show cause notice also did not mention the specific registered dealer (M/s Yamuna Overseas) which is alleged to be non-existent.
It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order as well as the orders dated 28.09.2020 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for refund pertaining to the period January, 2020 to March, 2020 and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh. Since the allegation that M/s Yamuna Overseas is non-existent and that the petitioner had not paid the amount due as per the invoices within the period of one hundred and eighty days is articulated in the impugned order, it would not be necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to issue a fresh show cause notice.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 350
Attachment of Bank account of petitioner - attachment during the pendency of investigation - fresh order of extension beyond the period of one year - HELD THAT:- Section 83 provides that for the purpose of protecting the interest of government revenue, the provisional attachment of any property including bank account belonging to the taxable person as prescribed in this provision, is permissible.
It is clear from the very provision of the act that during the pendency of any proceedings under Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, 74, the commissioner on a subjective satisfaction if finds it necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of government revenue may, by an order, in writing attach provisionally any property which may include the bank account which should belong to the taxable person and this provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of period of one year from the date of order made under sub-section (1).
Here, according to the respondent, the petitioner has admitted his tax liability and promised to pay, but, he has not paid the government dues and therefore, the respondent according to its affidavit-in-reply by way of abundant precaution for protecting the revenue’s interest has proceeded to attach and freeze the bank accounts on 27.02.2020 and 02.03.2020. According to the Respondent, more than Rs. 1,00,00,000 is available in the State Bank Accounts and the respondent department exercising the powers vested under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act after obtaining the approval of the competent authority has again sent the letter on 09.02.2021 to the banks directing them to freeze the facility of withdrawal of amount from these accounts for one more year in order to protect the government revenue.
Entertainment of the challenge to the merit is not desirable at this juncture at all as appropriate Authority would determine that aspect and statutory remedies would also demand address to such core issue at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court has chosen not to enter into the details of business model as explained in the statement of the petitioner and whether the transaction in money amounts to service attracting taxability under the Statute, except for the limited purpose of examining the apt exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Act prior to the finalization of assessment and raising of demand.
What has also been pressed into service before this Courtis the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] where the Apex court has held that the nature of provisional attachment being a draconian power, exercised before finalization of assessment or raising of the demand, the same has to be exercised with due caution. It is provisional as an aid of something else and its purpose is to protect revenue. Its validity depends on strict observance of statutory preconditions. Formation of commissioner’s opinion must approximate and live nexus to protection of revenue interest and it is not left to unguided subjective discretion of the commissioner’s opinion which must be based on tangible material regarding statutory requirement.
As per the decision of the Apex court that the Court shall need to examine whether the commissioner exercised the powers under Section 83 read with Rule 159 in accordance with law and the material fact for making determination needs to be kept in mind where this Court also needs to bear in mind the necessity of provisional attachment which implicates the doctrine of proportionality which mandates the existence of approximate or live link between the need for attachment and the purpose which it is intends to secure - The mandatory requirement of furnishing the opportunity to the person whose property is attached is in consonance with the principle of natural justice which ensures a fair procedure.
Provisional attachment of bank account without passing any fresh order after expiry of statutory period that too without compliance of necessary formalities would not be endorseable. The attachment of the bank account after expiry of prescribed period without passing fresh orders would surely be illegal in violation of rights of Assessee for carrying on business under article 19 of the Constitution of India as was held by the Calcutta High Court in case of Amazonite Steel Private Limited vs. union of India [2020 (3) TMI 1179 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. However, even after expiry of one-year period as prescribed under the law, it is incumbent upon the authorities to release the provisional attachment by informing the bank on issuance of a fresh order of provisional attachment since the very purpose for which this exercise of provisional attachment was done is not completed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 295
Cancellation of part of E-way bill - Intent to evade tax present or not - HELD THAT:- The High Court has remanded the matters to the appellate authority, in order to consider afresh as to whether there was any willful intention on the part of the petitioners to evade payment of duty. Since, the matters have been remanded, it is needless to observe that all contentions on both side are left open to be agitated before the appellate authority.
SLP dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 294
Claiming benefit of input tax credit when compounding is filed and is accepted - initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of UP GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has opted for compounding which has been accepted by the respondent authorities for a period of 1.10.2017 to 21.3.2019. The disputed purchase as shown by the petitioner from Rohit Coal Trader pertains to May 2018 to June 2018, which falls under the aforesaid period of composition. The petitioner in support of his contention has adduced evidence such as tax invoice, e-way bill, G.R., payment receipts etc. to show that the purchases have been made from the registered dealer. It is also admitted that the registration of Rohit Coal Traders has been cancelled vide order dated 24.10.2019 in other words at the time of transaction in question, the seller i.e. Rohit Coal Traders was registered firm under the G.S.T. Act - On the contrary an observation has been made that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any cogent material to show that Rohit Coal Traders has deposited the tax and therefore proceedings were held to be justified.
Under the GST regime all details are available in the portal of GST department. The authorities could have very well verified as to whether after filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR 3 B how much tax has been deposited by the selling dealer i.e. Rohit Coal Traders but the authorities have failed to do so. Thus looking to the said facts, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 248
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - no reasons mentioned in impugned order for such cancellation - HELD THAT:- The impugned order does not provide any reason as to why the petitioner’s registration was cancelled except to state that the tax payer has not given any response.
The impugned SCN did not contain any specific details as to the alleged fraud, wilful misstatement or the facts purported to have been suppressed by the petitioner. Clearly, the said SCN is vague and was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. It is settled law that a show cause notice must state the reason to enable the noticee to respond to the allegation on the basis of which the adverse action is proposed. The impugned SCN has failed to satisfy the said standard and therefore, is liable to be set aside. As stated above, the impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration.
The impugned SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside - the petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored forthwith - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 247
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 243
Coercive methods adopted for deposit of tax - Seeking quashing of summons issued to petitioner - seeking to restrain Respondent No. 1 from adopting any coercive measures such as arrest/detention by Respondent No. 1, without issuing show cause notice in terms of the CGST Act - compliance with the principles of natural justice - seeking to allow the presence of a lawyer during the investigation/summoning of the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act.
In the event, the petitioner wants to deposit the tax, he shall do so after seeking permission of this Court.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 242
Withholding of Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit - Denial on the ground that petitioner’s turnover for the relevant period (May, 2022 to June, 2022) was less than the refund claimed and that the petitioner had availed an excess ITC during the Financial Year 2021-22 - HELD THAT:- Concededly, there is no order staying the operation of the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023 - It cannot be accepted that the respondents can withhold the refund due to the petitioner on the ground as stated.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund in compliance with the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023 along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today.
-
2023 (11) TMI 210
Taxable supply of service or not - employing certain expatriates and paying salary in the Indian currency - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of C.C.,C.E. & S.T. – BANGALORE (ADJUDICATION) ETC. VERSUS M/S NORTHERN OPERATING SYSTEMS PVT LTD. [2022 (5) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT] is in the peculiarities of that particular case and cannot be applied in the present case when it cannot be disputed that salary will not be a taxable supply of service.
The interim order is granted as prayed for but with liberty to the respondents to seek vacation of this order - The office is directed to re-list this petition on 07.12.2023.
-
2023 (11) TMI 209
Refund of unutilised input tax credit - rejection of petitioner’s claim for refund on the ground that the petitioner’s case does not fall in the category of inverted duty structure - HELD THAT:- The provision contained in proviso (ii) to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, as it stands and on its plain reading, uses the expression, “where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies”. The language of the aforesaid provision is plain and simple signifying the plurality of both inputs and output supplies. The statute purposely uses the words, “inputs” and “output supplies”.
t is well settled that a taxing statute is to be strictly construed. Conscious use of the plural words, “inputs” and “output supplies” by the legislature has to be given full effect to. Use of the word, “inputs” signifies a situation where there may be more than one input and it is not possible to read “inputs” as “input” alone, so as to restrict its meaning. In other words, one of the basic principles of interpretation of statute is to read the statute as it is.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS KASTURI AND SONS LTD. [1999 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], while explaining the principle of strict construction of taxing statute and relying upon its various earlier decisions, propounded that in a taxing Act, one has to only look fairly at the language used therein.
The Supreme Court in VKC Footsteps India Private Limited having analysed the report of the Joint Committee, Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers on Business Process for GST and on Refund Process published in August, 2015, noted that under the proposed GST law, ITC will be allowed, so as to remove the cascading effect of taxes and it is the ultimate customer who should bear the burden of taxes. It was also noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there can be cases where there is an accumulation of credit due to inverted duty structure. It was only those cases of ITC accumulation which are on account of inverted duty structure, i.e., GST on output supplies being less than the GST on inputs that the scheme of refund would be applicable.
The impugned orders proceed on erroneous assumptions and presumptions. The premise on which the claim for refund has been outrightly rejected is that the output sales is to the extent of 80% of goods having 5% duty only and input too is majorly of 5% rate. On that basis, it has been concluded that the rate is more or less the same. This approach that “rate is more of less the same”, runs contrary to the statutory scheme. This patently violates not only the letter but also the spirit of the law. The statutory prescription being that where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies is sought to be substituted on the consideration that where the rate of tax is more or less the same - even if the overall rate of all inputs is marginally higher than rate of output supplies, the accumulation of unutilised input tax credit on such account will bring it within the net of inverted duty structure.
The other ground of rejection of claim of refund is equally unsustainable in law as it proceeds on the ground that the claim of refund is mainly due to high input purchases and they were in stock during the claim period(tax period). The authorities, while examining the claim of refund of the petitioner, were not only obliged to apply the statutory scheme as contained in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, in its true spirit, but also to keep in view the law providing for refund mechanism as contained in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which does not talk of the stock, but refers to output turnover (adjusted turnover) during the claim period. Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 envisages that total ITC claimed on inputs during the claim period gets consumed in respect of the turnover of the claim period.
As to how the refund would be computed in case the conditions and limitations provided under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 are fulfilled, is provided under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which provides for a formula for making such computation. In a case of accumulation of unutilised input tax credit on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies, the refund mechanism is governed by the said formula providing for maximum limit of refund and therefore, refund claim is to be determined on the basis of computation based on statutory formula prescribed in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and not on the basis of any other mode of computation and determination of actual amount of refund payment under the law.
Impugned order set aside - petition allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 208
Authorization for seizure of Gold - the petitioner submits that in the absence of such satisfaction or authorisation, the seizure becomes illegal, null and void - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of SGST/CGST Act 2017, it is evident that when search and seizure operations are authorised, at that time, it would not be known which are the items or documents or books which might be recovered or which would have been kept at a secreted place - What is relevant is that while granting authorisation for search and seizure operations, the authority granting such permission, i.e., Joint Commissioner or Officer above the rank of Joint Commissioner, should have reasons to believe that the goods, documents or things hold relevance and are useful in any legal proceedings under the SGST/CGST Act 2017 and the same are secreted at a particular place.
The contention of the petitioner that there was no authorisation for the seizure of 1647.970 grams of gold, the property of the petitioner, does not merit consideration as there was authorisation for the search of the premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery and these gold items, which the petitioner had later on claimed ownership, was found in a bag in the premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery.
There cannot be authorisation in respect of each and every person and each and every article, goods, books, and documents which may be discovered during the search operation. The authorisation has to be done in respect of the business premises of an assessee, and if things, items, books or documents are found that the authorised officer has reasons to believe that they would be relevant for the purpose of proceeding under the SGST/CGST Act 2017, they are liable to be seized - there are no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no authorisation under Section 67(2) of the SGST/CGST Act 2017 for the seizure of the gold ornaments weighing 1647.970 grams.
There are no substance in this writ petition - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 207
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - right of police officer to investigate the offence under the GST Act - requirement of custodial interrogation - evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point.
It appears that evasion of CGST / GST in connection with by preparing forged bill of petcoke is levelled against the accused persons and in this regard complaint has been filed. Going through the record and at the various stage, it appears that accused are pointing the figures towards each other and shift the blame to each other and the owner put the blame on the present accused, who is only a casual employee as he is concerned with only his wage at the end of the day. Considering the fact that actual beneficiary of said entire alleged offence is only may be considered only owner. However, stand taken on the part of the Investigating Officer appeared very selective.
The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested in connection with the FIR No. 11192050220242 of 2022 registered with Sanand Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount and on the conditions imposed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 206
Valuation - Scope of the term 'Consideration' - inclusion of value of diesel provided by the service recipient Free of Cost (FOC) in the truck of the GTA - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in the matter of UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS VKC FOOTSTEPS INDIA PVT LTD. [2021 (9) TMI 626 - SUPREME COURT] has defined the constitutional scheme of GST. Mainly it demonstrates that the idea which permeates GST legislation globally is to impose a multi stage tax under which each point in a supply chain is potentially taxed. Suppliers are entitled to avail credit of tax paid at an anterior stage. As a result, GST fulfills the description of a tax which is based on value addition.
The predominant object is for supply of goods and services, except those which are kept out of the purview of the goods and services tax - Indisputably, the petitioner is a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) in terms of GST. In so far as the service of GTA is concerned, if the services (of goods transportation) are provided by GTA to specified class of persons, the tax liability falls on such recipients under the reverse charge mechanism, In terms of Notification dated 28.06.2017.
In the case in hand, as per the proposed agreement/contract, the fuel (diesel) is not in the scope of the service of the petitioner. The agreement purports that the fuel would be free of cost basis for transportation of the goods and fuel would be filled by the service recipient for transportation.
In the instant case, the scope of supply as defined in section 7 of the GST Act purports “all forms of supply of services” made or agreed to be made for consideration “in the course” or “furtherance of business”. The words used in Section 7(1)(a), “in course” or “furtherance of business” would point out about service to be provided by the transporter as a GTA. The contention of petitioner that the “consideration” is required to be confined as per the terms of agreement cannot be given a literal interpretation - The recipient is not a GTA or engaged in business of transport. Consequently it is the petitioner GTA “in course” or “furtherance of business” has agreed to supply the goods or service for consideration. When it is the primary business of the GTA, in order to allow running the vehicles by fuel, it is a potential combination. If that part of responsibility is delegated by way of an agreement to the recipient, in such a case, the recipient would step into the shoes of GTA as its component and would be playing central role in setting narratives.
In the instant case, the value of service agreed to be provided necessarily will depend on the nature of service and the nature of business. The petitioner who can survive to run the business of goods transport on fuel therefore cannot claim that the diesel is supplied by the service recipient free of cost, as such, it cannot be included as the fuel is an integral part used in providing the Transportation Service and is essential for GTA provider. Without fuel the entire business of GTA cannot survive. Therefore, fuel being an integral part cannot be bifurcated to over come a tax liability - the Circular dated 8th June 2018 on which the petitioner tried to rely upon would not be of any help especially considering the nature of business and the provisions of Section 7(1)(a) and 15(2)(b) of CGST Act.
Thus, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 205
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - reply filed by the petitioner not taken into consideration and the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the respondent/Assessing Officer, admittedly, has failed to consider the reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice and passed a non-speaking order. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court certain paragraphs mentioned in the show cause notice were re-produced in the impugned order. Therefore, failure on the part of the respondent/Assessing Officer to address the reply/objections of the petitioner/assessee by a speaking order, would vitiate the impugned proceedings.
On this score, since the reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice remained undecided, this Court feels that the petitioner is entitled to have a considered opinion of the Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for re-consideration.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
