^®
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.S. CASHEWS vs. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) - I, PANRUTI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

C. Baktha Siromoni

Res. Counsel

V. Prasanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	S.S. CASHEWS
Respondent	DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) - I, PANRUTI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 1, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 12585 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 13747 & 13748 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10125
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 assessment order dated 05.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner states that he is a manufacturer of cashew nut kernels. Since he is not well versed with computer operations, it is stated that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings until after the impugned assessment order was issued. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy State Tax Officer is not authorized to exercise jurisdiction in matters where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 75,000/-. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Circular No.183 and that he would be in a position to establish that only eligible Input Tax Credit was claimed. His last contention is that the show cause notice did not refer to a demand for interest, whereas the impugned order imposes interest liability. 3. Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, app....