^®
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. |

AMBRESH & CO vs. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) , MADURAI.
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

Raja. Karthikeyan

Res. Counsel

R. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	AMBRESH & CO
Respondent	DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) , MADURAI.
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 5, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 11633 of 2024 And W. M. P. (MD) No. 10354 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 9844
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 The petitioner appears to be a Government contractor, who had rendered service to the Government Departments. It appears that the petitioner had paid the tax, although a portion of the tax payable by the petitioner was deducted by the concerned department and was reflected in Form GSTR-07 under Rule 61 of the TNGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 15 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Later, the department realised that the petitioner had not paid tax and had recovered the amount from the petitioner and acknowledged the same in DRC 03 dated 08.08.2022. 2. It is noticed that the impugned order was passed on 20.04.2023, however, the petitioner has failed to file an appeal against the impugned order. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sufficient amount in the electronic credit ledger and therefore, the petitioner need not be visited in person. A query as to whether the petitioner failed to pay monthly tax as is contemplated. The learned counsel for the petitio....