^®
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. |

V.S.R. AGRO PRODUCTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , KRISHNAGIRI.
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

B. Raveendran

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	V.S.R. AGRO PRODUCTS
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , KRISHNAGIRI.
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jul 12, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 17211 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 18984 & 18986 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10243
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 dated 17.10.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the total demand on merits. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded on the GST portal in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. After the impugned order was issued, he submits that the petitioner discharged the entire demand towards tax and interest. He further contends that the ingredients of Section 74 are not satisfied in this case and that the respondent failed to act in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 126 of applicable GST statutes. In these circumstances, he submits that ....