^®
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. |

GOD VENKATESWARA TRANSPORT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

Prithvi Chopda

P.aruna Chopda

Res. Counsel

K.vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	GOD VENKATESWARA TRANSPORT
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 30, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 12403 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 13530, 13531 & 13532 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10851
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 20.11.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner asserts that he carries on the business of providing goods transport agency services, which fall within the reverse charge mechanism. By further asserting that the petitioner's consultant inadvertently failed to reply to the show cause notice, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services provided by the petitioner fall under the reverse charge mechanism and, therefore, the recipient of services was liable to pay GST. He further submits that the recipients were two corporate entities, which paid GST on reverse charge basis. He seeks an opportunity to establish the above before the respondents. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. ....