^®
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. |

ABISHEK SUPPLIERS & OTHERS vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

V. Vijayalakshmi

Res. Counsel

K. Vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	ABISHEK SUPPLIERS & OTHERS
Respondent	THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 20, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 15133 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 16447 & 16449 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10047
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 An order in original dated 16.04.2024 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was unable to upload the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 14.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to explain the disparity between the GSTR 1 statement and the GSTR 3B return. By reply dated 12.01.2024, the petitioner requested for time. According to the petitioner, she could not upload the reply to the show cause notice thereafter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mismatch occurred because the petitioner inadvertently uploaded only the November and December 2017 transactions in the GSTR 1 statement, whereas the GSTR 3B return recorded all transactions. If provided an opportunity, she submits that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the disparity. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. 3. Mrs.K.Vasanthama....