^®
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. |

VIMAL TELELINKS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ERODE
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

R. Harshini

Res. Counsel

Harsha Raj

Petitioner / Applicant	VIMAL TELELINKS
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ERODE
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Apr 30, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 11631 of 2024, W. M. P. Nos. 12719 & 12722 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 10819
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 The petitioner assails an order dated 10.10.2023 on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 2. Upon scrutinizing the records of the petitioner, a notice in Form ASMT-10 was issued on 23.03.2023. This was followed by intimation dated 24.03.2023 and show cause notice dated 22.06.2023. By asserting that the petitioner was unaware of these proceedings because the intimation and show cause notice were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the show cause notice and pointed out that the tax liability indicated therein was Rs.33,270/-. In contrast, she points out that the impugned order confirms the tax liability of Rs.1,84,835/-. On instructions, she submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. 4. Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accept....