^®
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. |

FABRIC 33 vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

Rajkumar P.

Res. Counsel

T.n.c.kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	FABRIC 33
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 12, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 17109 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 18873 & 18875 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10230
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 29.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration. The petitioner asserts that he ceased to carry on business during financial year 2017-2018 and therefore filed a nil return in Form GSTR 1. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 alleging that the petitioner had made purchases of the value of Rs. 81,54,282/-, by reply dated 24.10.2023, the petitioner stated that no purchases were made in financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner also stated that there were no transactions in the petitioner's bank account. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner's reply and contended that the assessing officer should have conducted an enquiry at the alleged suppliers' end so as to ascertain whether the petitioner made purchases. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be called upon to prove t....