^®
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. |

REPCO MICRO FINANCE LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

S. Anandh

Res. Counsel

B. Ramanakumar

Petitioner / Applicant	REPCO MICRO FINANCE LIMITED
Respondent	THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 9, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16631 of 2024 And W. M. P. No. 18252 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10186
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 18.03.2024 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits. 2. The petitioner received show cause notice dated 29.01.2024 in respect of the reconciliation statements in Form GSTR 9C for assessment periods 2018-19 and 2020-21. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice on 07.02.2024. In response to such reply, the first respondent requested for clarifications on 07.03.2024. Such clarifications were provided by the petitioner by a further reply dated 08.03.2024. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances. 3. As regards financial year 2018-19, learned counsel contends that the alleged unreconciled taxable turnover pertained to the turnover of the Puducherry Unit of the petitioner. In spite of submitting a reply and enclosing the GST returns relating to Puducherry, he submits that the respondent concluded that the pe....