^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

ABI CONSTRUCTIONS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

Aparna Nandakumar

Res. Counsel

C. Harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	ABI CONSTRUCTIONS
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 24, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 15779 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 17183 & 17184 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10009
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER By this writ petition, an order in original dated 30.10.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. The petitioner asserts that the show cause notice and other communications relating to the impugned assessment order were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. Since the petitioner was not aware of proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner could not participate in the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal relates to the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR-3B returns and the GSTR-7 return filed by the recipient of construction services. She further submits that such mismatch occurred on account of the recipient of services accounting for such services in the assessment period 2021-22, whereas the petitioner recorded the transactions in 2022-23 when payments were received from the recipie....