^®
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. |

ORIENT ELECTRICALS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

T. R. Ramesh

Res. Counsel

V. Prasanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	ORIENT ELECTRICALS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 21, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 15515 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 16867 & 16869 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 9985
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 in original dated 23.08.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. A show cause notice dated 27.06.2023 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Input Tax Credit should not be reversed to the extent of credit notes issued by the petitioner's suppliers. Since the petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice, the petitioner could not reply thereto. Eventually, the petitioner was informed by its banker that an attachment notice was received from the Commercial Tax Department for recovery of tax. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. While filing such appeal, the petitioner made a pre deposit of 12.5% of the tax demand. Since such appeal was not entertained on the ground of limitation, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha....