^®
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. |

CHENNAIS PET. vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Pet. Counsel

Saitanya Kesan.

Res. Counsel

J.k. Jayaselan

Petitioner / Applicant	CHENNAIS PET.
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Feb 14, 2025
Order No.	W. P. (MD)No. 3995 of 2025 and W. M. P. (MD)Nos. 2880, 2881 and 2883 of 2025
Citation	2025(2) TAXREPLY 12519
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 PER With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the first respondent, which sought the reversal of the input tax credit availed by the petitioner for the financial year 2019-2020. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice in this case was uploaded in the additional notices column of the common portal and the consultant engaged by the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent. As a result, the petitioner was unable to submit a timely reply. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order only on 16.11.2024, when its bank account, maintained with the third respondent bank, was attached by the first respondent in recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the GST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20.11.2024, along with a petition for condonat....