^®
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. |

BALAJI TRADERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE STATE TAX OFFICER (ST)
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P.suresh Babu

T. Sureh

S.manimegala

Res. Counsel

K.vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	BALAJI TRADERS
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE STATE TAX OFFICER (ST)
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 11, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 14259 of 2024 & WMP Nos. 15463 & 15464 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10725
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 14.07.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. By asserting that the petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice or the order in original because the same were uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned was carried in appeal before the first respondent and that such appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation. He also submits that 10% of the disputed tax demand was remitted at the time of filing of the appeal. 4. Mrs. K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. She submits that the order in original was issued on 14.07.2023 and that the petitioner filed the present writ petition in April, 2024. In view of such delay, she submits th....