Case Details: Chandra Enterprises vs. Deputy State Tax Officer [2025] 181 taxmann.com 355 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
-
K.A. Parthasarathy for the Petitioner.
-
V. Prashanth Kiran, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the demand proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional officer, asserting that the outward supplies were wrongly reported in Form GSTR-3B due to which there was a difference in the Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. It was contended that the disputed tax was credited to the electronic credit ledger and applicable interest was paid. Despite such payment, a notice in Form DRC-01 was issued for the relevant period, and on account of non-response, an order was passed confirming tax, interest, and penalty, while the statutory appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the return filed prima facie reflected evasion, followed by subsequent remittance of tax along with interest, which warranted closer examination under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act. The Court examined the scope of proceedings where tax and interest had been paid prior to issuance of notice and noted that such payment was a relevant factor requiring due consideration by the original authority. It held that confirmation of demand without examining the effect of pre-notice payment and the explanation offered by the petitioner was unsustainable.
The post Pre-Notice Tax and Interest Payment Bars Demand – Matter Remanded | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
