^®
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. |

AMRITA & CO. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

U.sriram

Res. Counsel

K.vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	AMRITA & CO.
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 10, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 13367 of 2024 and W. M. P. Nos. 14507 & 14508 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10742
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 15.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the petitioner had entrusted GST compliances to an auditor and that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal pertains to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. He further submits that if provided an opportunity, the petitioner would be in a position to establish that only eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed. 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.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, she points out that such....