^®
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. |

SEWA TOJI ELECTRONICS vs. THE DEPUTY SALES TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

N. ANAND VENKATESH

Pet. Counsel

S. Durairaj

Res. Counsel

G. Nanmaran

Petitioner / Applicant	SEWA TOJI ELECTRONICS
Respondent	THE DEPUTY SALES TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Sep 19, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 27769 of 2024 And WMP. Nos. 30278 & 30279 of 2024
Citation	2024(9) TAXREPLY 11185
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 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 25.4.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that during the last week of August 2024, the petitioner received a call from the office of the respondent directing the petitioner to pay the dues. Thereafter, the petitioner carried out due diligence and found that the respondent passed an order under Section 73 of the Act on the ground that there is a discrepancy in between Forms GSTR - 3B and GSTR - 1. The petitioner has taken a very specific stand that the petitioner is not aware about the proceedings initiated by the respondent and that the entire communication has been sent only through portal. Hence, the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the respondent....