^®
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. |

M. SANKARALINGAM vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

Raja. Karthikeyan

Res. Counsel

R.sureshkumar

Petitioner / Applicant	M. SANKARALINGAM
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 14, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 12704 of 2024 And W. M. P. (MD)No. 11287 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 9998
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 This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent on 22.12.2023, whereby, totally a sum of Rs. 3,00,626/- has been confirmed against the petitioner towards the tax liability, interest payable thereof and penalty imposed. The tax liability alone comes out to Rs. 1,37,914/- of aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,00,626/-. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a small time operator and therefore, failed to notice that the notices that were issued prior to the impugned order. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner also failed to participate in the proceedings as the petitioner failed to notice the personal hearing notices dated 25.11.2023 and 10.12.2023. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may ....