^®
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. |

BRIGHT HARDWARE vs. THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER - I, COIMBATORE
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

S. Kannan

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	BRIGHT HARDWARE
Respondent	THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER - I, COIMBATORE
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 27, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 15948 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 17414 & 17416 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10030
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 18.01.2024 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the petitioner had engaged a part time accountant to handle GST compliances and was therefore unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inadvertent error was committed while filing the GSTR 3B returns for September 2018 in as much as an entry was made in column 4(A)(3) relating to inward supply liable to reverse charge instead of reporting in column 4(A)(5) relating to all other ITC. According to learned counsel, the entire tax proposal arose as a consequence of this inadvertent error. Learned counsel seeks another opportunity and, on instructions, submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. 3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additiona....