^®
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. |

MURUGAN METALS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) , CHENNAI & OTHER
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

Pranav Jain

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	MURUGAN METALS
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) , CHENNAI & OTHER
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 25, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16582 of 2024 And WMP Nos. 18193 & 18194 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10075
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 28.12.2023 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. The petitioner asserts that he had duly reported both inward and outward supply in the GSTR 3B and the GSTR 1 returns. He, however, asserts that an inadvertent error was made while filing the annual return by choosing Column 6[D] instead of Column 6[B]. According to the petitioner, this resulted in the tax proposal. The petitioner further asserts that he was unaware of the impugned order until the bank attachment notice dated 17.05.2024 was served on the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply dated 11.01.2023 and pointed out that the petitioner had attached the GSTR 3B return and a comparison statement between the GSTR 2A and the GSTR 3B. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessing officer failed to take into account the GSTR 3B returns of the petitio....