^®
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. |

RAM STEEL vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, DINDIGUL.
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

Raja. Karthikeyan

Res. Counsel

R. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	RAM STEEL
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, DINDIGUL.
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 27, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 13808 of 2024 And W. M. P. (MD)No. 12145 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10122
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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 bearing reference in GSTIN:33CNNPR2172L1ZJ/2022-23 passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2022-23. 3. By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order for a sum of Rs. 5,98,768/- (IGST-Rs.1,21,898/- + SGST – Rs. 2,38,435/- + CGST – Rs. 2,38,435/-). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that although the petitioner had replied the show cause notice, one of the staff of the petitioner has appeared and conceded without knowledge of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a small time operator and was unaware of the personal hearing that was proposed to be held on 25.07.2023. 5. That apart, it is submitted that in the impugned order, there is no semblance of any discussion rega....