^®
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. |

LAXMI VENKATESHWARA AGENCIES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX & OTHERS
(Telangana High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SUJOY PAUL
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Pet. Counsel

T.s. Murthy

Res. Counsel

B. Swapna Reddy

Gadi Praveen Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	LAXMI VENKATESHWARA AGENCIES
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX & OTHERS
Court	Telangana High Court
State	Telangana
Date	Jun 18, 2024
Order No.	WRIT PETITION No. 5473 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 11766
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 PER (HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL) Sri T.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Swapna Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 12.09.2023 (annexure P-1) vide Order-in-Original No. 208/2023-24-S.Tax issued by the first respondent. This assessment order is called in question in this petition directly by contending: (i) the impugned order is founded upon certain show-cause notices, which were issued beyond the statutory period of limitation of thirty months under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act. (ii) The show-cause notices were served through E-mail whereas the Act nowhere prescribes any such mode of service through E-mail (iii) the petitioner filed his replies and placed reliance on certain High Courts and Supreme Court judgments. Sinc....