^®
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. |

MONIKA ALLOYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

A. Ganesh

Res. Counsel

C. Harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	MONIKA ALLOYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 26, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16563 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 18170 & 18171 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10121
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 26.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 19.09.2023 alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Such show cause notice was replied to on 10.10.2023 by stating that transitional VAT credit was claimed by filing Form TRAN-1. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 26.12.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply and contended that the reply and the documents annexed thereto were not taken into consideration while issuing the impugned order. 3. Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration. 4. The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 10.10.2023. Such reply appears to have been uploaded on the portal along with attachments thereto. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the petiti....