^®
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. |

SURRAL SURFACE COATING PVT. LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P.v. Sudakar

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	SURRAL SURFACE COATING PVT. LIMITED
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , CHENNAI
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 4, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 16374 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 17937 & 17938 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10131
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 27.04.2024 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing. Pursuant to show cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the petitioner filed a reply dated 23.01.2024. The impugned order was issued thereafter without providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tax liability of Rs. 13,82,565/- was imposed towards the IGST component. He submits that GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner clearly indicate that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 1,57,22,386/- was available and that, therefore, excess ITC was not availed of. He points out that the petitioner accepted the liability as regards SGST and CGST and made payments towards discharge thereof. On account of a personal hearing not being given, learned counsel seeks another opportunity as regards the IGST component. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as a condition for remand. ....