^®
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. |

BRAKES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

N.murali

Res. Counsel

C.harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	BRAKES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 28, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16331 of 2024, WMP Nos. 17877 & 17878 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 11322
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 02.04.2024 is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Pursuant to show cause notice dated 10.02.2023, an order dated 30.10.2023 was issued. Such order was challenged in W.P.No.36439 of 2023. By order dated 03.01.2024, the order impugned therein was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The order impugned in this writ petition was issued pursuant to such reconsideration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the communication dated 24.01.2024 from the petitioner annexing six volumes of documents. He submits that all relevant documents such as the purchase orders placed on the supplier, M/s. Quality Traders, by the petitioner, the tax invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips at the supplier end, weighment slips at the tax payers end, bank statement reflecting payments made to the supplier, etc. were submitted to the respondent. In spite of all these documents being submitted, learned counsel contend....