^®
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

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

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. |

MUTHU KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, NANGUNERI.
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Pet. Counsel

N.sudalai Muthu

Res. Counsel

J.k.jayaselan

Petitioner / Applicant	MUTHU KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, NANGUNERI.
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 9, 2025
Order No.	W. P. (MD)No. 10053 of 2025 And W. M. P. (MD)No. 7500 of 2025
Citation	2025(4) TAXREPLY 13042
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order of the respondent, dated 25.08.2023, for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of assessment for the year 2022-2023 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that the Nanguneri Panchayat Union, where the petitioner had executed the works contract, wrongly credited the TDS amount at 2% deduction from the petitioner to the old cancelled GSTIN number instead of the existing GSTIN number, which resulted in a mismatch between Form GSTR 7 and Form GSTR 1 in the old GSTIN number. 4. The learned counsel also submits that, against the assessment order passed by the respondent on 25.08.....