^®
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.S. ENTERPRISES vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

D. Vijayakumar

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	M.S. ENTERPRISES
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition Nos. 10598 & 10602 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 11649, 11652, 11657 & 11659 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10903
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
COMMON ORDER Assessment orders dated 13.12.2023 are assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing. 2. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST enactments. Upon receipt of the show cause notice dated 23.08.2023, the petitioner submitted replies dated 20.11.2023 & 06.12.2023, respectively. The impugned orders were issued thereafter on 13.12.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner's replies and pointed out that the petitioner had responded to all defects referred to in the show cause notice. He also pointed out that a personal hearing was expressly requested for by the said reply. By further submitting that such personal hearing was not provided, learned counsel submits that the impugned orders call for interference. He also points out that a personal hearing was held on 22.03.2024 in relation to the same assessment periods and that the petitioner submitted several documents at such pe....