^®
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. |

ANNAI EARTH MOVERS, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

N. Janani

Adithya Reddy

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	ANNAI EARTH MOVERS,
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 27, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 16021 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 17503 & 17504 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10029
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 dated 26.08.2023 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings and therefore could not contest the tax demand on merits. Subsequent to the impugned order, she points out that sums of Rs. 2,25,106/- and Rs. 4,76,974/- were debited from the bank account of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the amounts debited constitute more than 50% of the disputed tax demand. 3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that principles of natural justice w....