^®
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. |

RAGAVA PAPER vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) APPEAL-I & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Suresh Babu

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	RAGAVA PAPER
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) APPEAL-I & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 13, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 14724 of 2024 And W. M. P. No. 15965 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10016
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 04.09.2023 and an appellate order dated 12.04.2024 are assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By stating that the petitioner entrusted GST compliances to an Accountant and that such Accountant did not inform the petitioner about proceedings, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not carry on business during the Covid-19 pandemic period and, therefore, filed nil returns. After coming to know of the order in original, he submits that an appeal was filed before the first respondent. He points out that such appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submits that 10% of the disputed tax demand was paid at the time of presenting the appeal and the petitioner agrees to remit an additional 5% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand to the original author....