^®
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. |

SRI UMA PLASTICS vs. THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Rajkumar

Res. Counsel

K. Vasanthamala

Petitioner / Applicant	SRI UMA PLASTICS
Respondent	THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 10744 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 11826, 11829 & 11831 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10883
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 11.10.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of plastic scrap. According to the petitioner, a commercial vehicle was purchased for business purposes and Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed in respect thereof. By asserting that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total tax demand is a sum of Rs.4,28,936/-. Upon attachment of the petitioner's bank account, he submits that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was appropriated therefrom and that this amount represents almost 50% of the disputed tax demand. 4. Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the first and second respondents. She points out that the impugned order was preceded by n....