^®
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. |

R. SOUNDARARAJAN & CO. vs. THE DEPUTY TAX OFFICER-1
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

S. SRIMATHY

Pet. Counsel

N.viswanathan

Res. Counsel

B.saravanan

Petitioner / Applicant	R. SOUNDARARAJAN & CO.
Respondent	THE DEPUTY TAX OFFICER-1
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Aug 7, 2023
Order No.	W.P.(MD)No. 19092 of 2023 And W.M.P(MD)Nos. 15838 And 15841 of 2023
Citation	2023(8) TAXREPLY 8153
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 is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 27.04.2022. 2. With their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the documents. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that total turnover was stated in the impugned order is GSTR-I Rs.1,67,60,124.15 and the SGST is Rs. 14,08,714.97 and the CGST is Rs. 14,08,714.97. The total tax i.e., paid by the petitioner is stated in the second column. Infact, the petitioner has paid the excess amount. 4. Before passing the impugned order, the petitioner has not availed any personal hearing. 4. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not responded the notice. However, the respondent stated that the notice was sent through the e-Mail I.D of ....