^®
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. |

BALAGURU TRADERS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) VIRUDHUNAGAR
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C.SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

S.raja Jeya

Chandra Paul

Res. Counsel

R.suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	BALAGURU TRADERS
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) VIRUDHUNAGAR
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 11, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 15372 of 2024 and W. M. P. (MD)Nos. 13473 & 13474 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 11241
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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, is a senior citizen and a dealer, registered under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, is before this Court challenging the impugned assessment order dated 26.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 bearing reference in Case ID No. GSTIN/33AUNPG1106E1Z9/2017-18. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to notice the notices that preceded the impugned order and therefore, did not respond the same. 4. It is submitted that for the same reason also, the petitioner did not file appeal before the Appellate Commissioner in time. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order after the recovery proceedings were initiated. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 78 years and he is under treatment from 15.03.2024 for frequent loss of conscious, memory....