ANAND SATHYA VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND EXCISE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST & EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI vide W. P. (MD). No. 14548 of 2024 And W. M. P(MD)No. 12769 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1540

The Madras High Court in this case, quashed the tax demand orders issued against the petitioner, who had not taken over his deceased father's business. Following the judgment in the previous case, the court remits the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring due process and opportunity for the petitioner to defend against the tax liabilities as a legal representative. 

In this case, the petitioner challenges orders related to tax demands issued after the death of his father, who was the original business owner and liable for the tax. The petitioner contends that since he has not taken over his father’s business, he should not be held liable for the tax dues. 

 

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426