^®
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. |

C. RAMAMOORTHY CONTRACT & LORRY SERVICE vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, ARAKKONAM
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

S. Yashiga

Joseph Prabakar

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	C. RAMAMOORTHY CONTRACT & LORRY SERVICE
Respondent	STATE TAX OFFICER, ARAKKONAM
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 25, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 10856 of 2024 and W. M. P. No. 11963 & 11964 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10145
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 order in original dated 28.07.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner provides goods transport agency services. The petitioner asserts that the services provided by him fall within the reverse charge mechanism under applicable GST enactments. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of proceedings commencing by issuance of show cause notice dated 12.07.2022 because the notices and order were uploaded on the GST portal, but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the communication dated 16.03.2024 from Brakes India Private Limited and pointed out that the recipient of services confirmed payment of GST during financial year 2018-2019. Since GST was paid on the relevant transaction, learned counsel seeks another opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax ....