^®
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. |

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST-III) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

R.charulatha

Res. Counsel

V.prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST-III) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 24, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16090 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 17609 & 17610 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10026
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 assessment order dated 18.03.2024 is assailed on the ground that it is unreasoned. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of assessment period 2018-19 under two show cause notices each dated 27.12.2023. Pursuant to the petitioner's reply dated 25.01.2024, by order dated 18.03.2024, proceedings bearing reference No.ZD330324109919B were dropped. The proceedings under the other show cause notice were proceeded with and such proceedings culminated in the impugned assessment order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner's reply and pointed out that the petitioner had explained that the input tax credit availed of was lower than that available in the auto-populated GSTR-2A. She further submits that the auto-populated GSTR-2A is dynamic inasmuch as it reflects data uploaded by the supplier concerned in the GSTR-1 statement and GSTR-3B on an ongoing basis. She submits that the impugned proceedings were initiated....