^®
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. |

INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Rajkumar

Res. Counsel

C. Harsharaj

Petitioner / Applicant	INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO.
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Aug 1, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 18158 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 19942 & 19943 of 2024
Citation	2024(8) TAXREPLY 10408
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 16.04.2024 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 the business is carried on in multiple States such as Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu. During the relevant period 2018-2019, it is stated that the petitioner did not effect substantial taxable supplies in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner did not monitor the GST portal and, therefore, failed to reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 was issued in these facts and circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the show cause notice and contended that the tax demand in the show cause notice is confined to two issues, namely, the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the GSTR 1 return as also the difference between the GSTR 3B returns....