^®
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. |

S. ANAND SATHYA vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

I. Romeo Roy Alfred

Res. Counsel

N. Dilip Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	S. ANAND SATHYA
Respondent	THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 4, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD). No. 14548 of 2024 And W. M. P(MD)No. 12769 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10260
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 93

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER In this case, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 22.03.2024 and the consequential demand order, dated 26.04.2024 and 01.05.2024. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in respect of the demand due and payable by the petitioner’s father in the business that was carried out by the petitioner’s father who died on 08.02.2023. It is further submitted that even the ASMT-10 notice, dated 09.03.2023 is after the death of the petitioner’s father. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not taken over the business of the petitioner’s father (Late) Mr.Sathianesan and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. It is noticed that as a legal representative, the petitioner may be liable to be taxed in terms of Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. A similar writ petition was also filed by this petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11646 of 2024 for the assessment....