^®
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. |

VELA AGENCIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST FAC
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

N. Murali

Res. Counsel

V. Prashanth Kiran

Petitioner / Applicant	VELA AGENCIES
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST FAC
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 26, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 11030 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 12108 And 12109 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 9507
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 23.06.2023 is assailed on the ground that the impugned order proceeds on a completely different basis from the show cause notice. The petitioner received intimation dated 24.11.2022 and show cause notice dated 29.12.2022. The petitioner replied to the intimation on 28.12.2022 by stating that the petitioner was a distributor of Aircel Limited (Aircel) and that the petitioner was unable to conduct business after 28.02.2018 due to the closure of the business of Aircel. The impugned order was issued in these circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the intimation and show cause notice and pointed out that the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why tax liability of Rs. 8,27,252/- should not be imposed with regard to sales suppression, which was estimated on the basis of the Input Tax Credit availed of by the petitioner. In contrast, learned counsel submits that tax liability of Rs. 14,97,072/- was imposed under the impugned....