^®
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. |

GAYATHRI CONSTRUCTION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Rajkumar

Res. Counsel

C.harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	GAYATHRI CONSTRUCTION
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 26, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 15851 of 2024 And WMP Nos. 17277, 17292 & 17294 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10061
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 28.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. By asserting that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order because the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded on GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and Form 26AS. He submits that the assessment period is 2017-18 and that the GST enactments came into force on 01.07.2017. By contrast, he points out that Form 26 AS reflects transactions for the entire financial year. According to learned counsel, this is the reason for mismatch. If provided an opportunity, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the mi....