^®
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. |

TVL R. THANGARAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

C. SARAVANAN

Pet. Counsel

A. Satheesh Murugan

Res. Counsel

R. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner / Applicant	TVL R. THANGARAJ
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 10, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (MD) No. 24026 of 2023 And W. M. P. (MD)Nos. 20175 & 20177 of 2023
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10267
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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.08.2023 passed by the second respondent for the assessment year 2018-19 bearing reference in GSTIN. 33AGDPR8077R1Z1. 3. By the impugned order, the demand, that was proposed in DRC 01 dated 29.04.2024, has been confirmed. The impugned order records that the petitioner has neither replied to the show cause notice nor has appeared during personal hearings. 4. It is noticed that the petitioner had indeed filed the return only in GST DRC 01A part B and in GST DRC 03 on 28.04.2022, a copy of which, is enclosed along with the typed set of papers. It is evident that it has not been considered by the second respondent. 5. It is noticed that only after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner sent a representation dated 08.09.2023 to the first respondent. 6. Considering the fact that the petition....