^®
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. |

SIMLA TRADERS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI.
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

A. Satheesh Murugan

Res. Counsel

R. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	SIMLA TRADERS
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MADURAI.
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 15, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) Nos. 15562 & 15563 of 2024 And W. M. P. (MD)Nos. 13609, 13611, 13626 & 13627 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10384
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
COMMON ORDER By this common order, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is before this Court against the respective impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 12.12.2023 passed for the respective assessment years namely, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The demand has been confirmed on the petitioner for the respective assessment years based on the data retrieved by the Department from the profit and loss account and the balance sheet of the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order that was passed on the petitioner is totally incorrect. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has, however, failed to reply the notices that preceded the respective impugned orders and thus, did not file statutory appeal in time. 6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the re....