^®
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. |

ITARES SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

V. Ravindran

Res. Counsel

Rajinish Pathiyil

Petitioner / Applicant	ITARES SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 11, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16889 of 2024 And W. M. P. No. 18576 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10206
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Notification No.38/2019 Central Tax

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 28.03.2024 is subject to challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner received a demand letter dated 21.12.2023 with regard to the disparity between the e-way bills reflected in the e-way bill portal and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns for assessment periods running from 2018-19 to 2020-21. 2. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 10.01.2024. Being dissatisfied with such reply, a show cause notice dated 29.01.2024 was issued. The petitioner replied thereto on 27.02.2024. By asserting that the impugned order was dispatched to the petitioner and served only on 24.04.2024, the petitioner submitted additional replies on 15.04.2024 and 16.04.2024. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was called upon to show cause with regard to the mismatch between the value of e-way bills generated on the e-way bill portal and returns filed by the pe....