Case Details: O K Travels vs. State Tax Officer [2026] 182 taxmann.com 711 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
-
P.P. Vikram for the Petitioner.
-
V. Prashanth Kiran, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the order, which confirmed a demand arose after the non-reply to the show cause notice issued in GST DRC-01, and it was therefore confirmed against the assessee. Subsequently, it filed an application for rectification of mistake under Section 161 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act, seeking correction of the order. The rectification application was rejected. The assessee contended that the rejection of the rectification application was arbitrary and contrary to law. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the impugned order demonstrated that the jurisdictional officer under CGST and the jurisdictional officer under the Tamil Nadu GST Act complied with the procedural requirements of the respective GST enactments and the rules made thereunder. It was held that the assessee’s failure to respond to the show cause notice in GST DRC-01 rendered the demand’s confirmation legally sustainable. The High Court held that the rejection of the rectification application under Section 161 did not warrant interference.
The post GST Demand Upheld for Non-Reply to SCN | Appeal Allowed with Deposit appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
