^®
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. |

ELLA TEA INDUSTRY vs. THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-I, NILGIRIS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Pet. Counsel

J.bharathiraja

Res. Counsel

K.vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	ELLA TEA INDUSTRY
Respondent	THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-I, NILGIRIS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Aug 8, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 19671 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 21534 & 21535 of 2024
Citation	2024(8) TAXREPLY 10542
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 By consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. According to the petitioner, they are engaged in the Tea Industry and are a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act. Upon scrutiny under Section 61 of the Act, for the year 2018- 2019, the respondent found some discrepancies in the petitioner’s tax return and issued a show cause notice dated 25.11.2021, stating that the petitioner company had not declared its correct tax liability, while filing GSTR-3B for the said period and had claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) than what was available in the inward data. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted its reply on 19.12.2022 with supporting documents, and the respondent, being satisfied with the explanation provided, dropped further proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that despite the closure of the matter ....