^®
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. |

SELVA GANESH HARDWARES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

S.p.sri Hari

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	SELVA GANESH HARDWARES
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 11, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 14280 of 2024 and W. M. P. Nos. 15496 & 15497 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10724
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 25.10.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal relates to the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had inadvertently filled up Table 4(A)(3) instead of Table 4(A)(5), which is the relevant column pertaining to all other ITC. If provided an opportunity, she submits that the petitioner would be able to explain the discrepancy. On instructions, she submits that the 2/6 petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. 4. Mr. V. Prasha....