^®
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. |

VIKAS A SHAH vs. STATE TAX OFFICER
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
SYAM KUMAR V.M.

Pet. Counsel

Srikanth Thamban Sravan M.s.

Res. Counsel

V.k Shamsudheen

Petitioner / Applicant	VIKAS A SHAH
Respondent	STATE TAX OFFICER
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Jul 19, 2024
Order No.	WA NO. 995 OF 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 11287
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
JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.18332 of 2024 is the appellant here in, aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2. In much as the facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal have already been detailed in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not chose to reiterate those facts here. 3. Briefly stated the contention of the appellant before us is that, the learned Single Judge erred in relegating him to his alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against Ext.P11 order in terms of CGST/SGST Act, 2017. 4. On a consideration of the pleadings before us, we find as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant was afforded a personal hearing before passing Ext.P11 order that was impugned in the writ petition. Although it is his case that he was not aware of the substance of the issues in respect to which he was asked to show cause, we find....