^®
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. |

HEALTH REMEDIES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

G. Natarajan

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	HEALTH REMEDIES
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Aug 1, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 18079 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 19877 & 19879 of 2024
Citation	2024(8) TAXREPLY 10382
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 20.12.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner states that his GST registration was cancelled by order dated 25.09.2018 with effect from 31.08.2018. Since the show cause notice was uploaded on the common portal on 29.09.2023, which is about five years after the cancellation of the GST registration, it is stated that the petitioner did not monitor the portal and, consequently, could not participate in proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner and pointed out that it shows that a sum of Rs. 5,09,847/- was available towards IGST and that if this had been taken into consideration there would be no mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. He also submits that the credit was not utilized and has lapsed. On instructions, he submits that t....