^®
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. |

HAJEE TRADERS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Pet. Counsel

G. Aniesh

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	HAJEE TRADERS
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Feb 18, 2025
Order No.	W. P. No. 5303 of 2025 And W. M. P. Nos. 5881 & 5883 of 2025
Citation	2025(2) TAXREPLY 12523
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 23.04.2024 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner had entrusted a Consultant for filing reply to the show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 issued by the respondents. However, the petitioner's consultant had simply uploaded the Form GSTR-9 and Form GSTR-9C instead of filing a proper reply. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 came to be passed by the 1st respondent. 4. Further, he would contend that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order, which is violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, he referre....