^®
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. METALS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

D. Vijayakumar

Res. Counsel

V. Prasanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	S.S. METALS
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 24, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 15381 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 16714 & 16718 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10043
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 16

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER In this writ petition, an assessment order dated 07.03.2024 is assailed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner had availed of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in relation to supplies received from J.Minar Traders. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing show cause notice dated 09.08.2023. In such show cause notice, it was alleged that the petitioner is not entitled to ITC because the supplier was non existent. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 08.11.2023 and asserted that only eligible ITC was availed of. In order to establish that the supply was genuine, the petitioner enclosed the tax invoice, bank statement, e-way bill and the GSTR 2A. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ITC was denied to the petitioner in spite of the petitioner submitting the relevant tax invoice, e-way bill and bank statement. In fact, learned counsel....