^®
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. |

JAIN TIMBER TRADERS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

Pooja Chopda

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	JAIN TIMBER TRADERS
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 31, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 18058 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 19833 & 19834 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10463
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 30.12.2023 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits. The petitioner asserts that GST compliances were entrusted to a consultant. It is further stated that such consultant did not inform the petitioner about the uploading of the show cause notice on the common portal. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner could not contest the tax proposal on merits. 2. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both discrepancy nos.2 and 12 relate to the mismatch between the petitioner's annual return and the reconciliation statement. By referring to the GSTR 9C return, learned counsel submits that the differential taxable value of Rs. 6,78,000/- was reported in the GSTR 9C return and taxes in respect thereof were paid. Likewise, as regards discrepancy no.6 relating to ineligible transitional credit, she ....