^®
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. |

SEBON CREATIONS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) TIRUPUR
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Rajkumar

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	SEBON CREATIONS
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) TIRUPUR
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 10736 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 11816 & 11820 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10902
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 20.10.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in readymade garments. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order since the notices and order were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR-3B returns, on the one hand, and the GSTR-1 statement and auto-populated GSTR-2A, on the other. He points out that the petitioner did not avail of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in relation to the purchase of granites since such purchase pertained to the construction carried out by the petitioner for non-business purposes. If provided an opportunity, he submits that the petitioner woul....