^®
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. |

VIGNESH BINDING WORKS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER/COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

P. Rajkumar

Res. Counsel

C. Harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	VIGNESH BINDING WORKS
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER/COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 20, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 15276 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 16606 and 16607 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10003
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 30.12.2023 is challenged on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 2. By asserting that the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal, but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner asserts that a tax consultant was engaged for GST compliances and that the show cause notice was not brought to the notice of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR-3B returns and the GSTR-1 statement. He further submits that the show cause notice was issued by Mr. Jacob Stephen Paul and not by the officer who issued the impugned order. He further submits that the personal hearing notice was also not issued by the officer who issued the impugned order. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax ....