^®
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. |

MUTHU TRADERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

S.ramanan

Res. Counsel

T.n.c.kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	MUTHU TRADERS
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 10622 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 11693, 11694 & 11696 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10833
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 10.07.2023 is challenged 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 states that he is engaged in the business of trading in groceries and allied products. The petitioner asserts that he is not conversant with GST compliances and had engaged a consultant for such purpose. Since the consultant did not inform the petitioner about proceedings culminating in the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner was unaware of such proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax demand pertains to mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. If provided an opportunity, he submits that the petitioner would be able to explain the discrepancy. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner is willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. 4. Mr.....