^®
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. |

JUPITER & CO. vs. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

N.murali

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	JUPITER & CO.
Respondent	DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 14, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 14964 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 16246 & 16247 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10018
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 dated 30.04.2024 is assailed on the ground that the order is unreasoned and disregards the petitioner's replies. 2. The petitioner was a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Upon receipt of a show cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the petitioner filed replies on 13.03.2024, 03.04.2024 and 29.04.2024. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 30.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply dated 03.04.2024 and pointed out that the petitioner explained the reason for mismatch between the petitioner's returns in comparison to the GST 7 return of the recipient of services. In particular, he submits that work was executed by the petitioner for Government Departments during the VAT period, whereas payments were made subsequently. In spite of such reply, he submits that the impugned order was issued by concluding that the petitioner's reply is not genuine. 4. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government ....