^®
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. |

ASWATH SAW MILL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

B. Rooban

Res. Counsel

R. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	ASWATH SAW MILL
Respondent	THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 19, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 4963 of 2021 And W. M. P. (MD) No. 4028 of 2021
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10113
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 has challenged the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the second respondent/the State Tax Officer. The impugned order precedes the notice issued to the petitioner in ASMT – 10 dated 07.01.2020 as also the intimation in DRC -01A as also the notice in DRC 01. The petitioner has replied to the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made wrong credit entry of Rs. 76,18,870/- during the month of April, 2019 instead of Rs. 38,09,435/-. It is submitted that the mistake was rectified by the petitioner in the returns filed by the petitioner in GSTR 3B for the month of May, 2019. Thus, it is submitted that the discrepancy, if any, stood rectified. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the fact that there was sufficient balance of ITC of IGST during the month of May, 2019 for a sum of Rs. 16,20,059/- and therefore, the tax liability of the petitioner for the month of April, as far as IGST liabilit....