^®
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. |

GEM GRANITES vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Pet. Counsel

R. Vasumithran

Res. Counsel

Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran

Petitioner / Applicant	GEM GRANITES
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Feb 10, 2025
Order No.	W. P. No. 37278 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 40297 & 40298 of 2024
Citation	2025(2) TAXREPLY 12463
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 This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though he had sought for larger relief in this petition, he had restricted his relief to the extent of challenging the impugned order only on the aspect of “security wages”. In this regard, he referred the Audit Note No.8 of the impugned order, wherein the “security wages” has been shown as Rs. 2,90,28,232/-, for which, the respondent had demanded tax liabilities of a sum of Rs. 26,12,541/- as CGST and Rs. 26,12,541/- as SGST. 4. Further, he would submit that prior to the passing of impugned order, the aforesaid issue, v....