^®
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. |

SREERAM SPHEROIDS AND GRAPHITES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , COIMBATORE
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

C. Derrick Sam

Res. Counsel

T.n.c. Kaushik

Petitioner / Applicant	SREERAM SPHEROIDS AND GRAPHITES PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , COIMBATORE
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 9, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 16689 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 18330 & 18331 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10188
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 29.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 relating to about 10 defects, the petitioner submitted replies dated 16.12.2023 and 28.12.2023. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the highest tax proposal, which was confirmed in the impugned order, relates to the mismatch between the taxable turnover reported in GSTR 9 and that reported in GSTR 3B. Learned counsel contends that such disparity arose on account of the inadvertent error in reflecting credit notes in the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner. While filing the annual return in GSTR 9, learned counsel submits that the credit notes were duly reflected therein. Upon taking note of such credit notes, he contends that the mismatch stands duly explained. He also points out that the impugned order contains a patent error in as much as tax of Rs. 1,17,31....