^®
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. |

ZAMA & CO. vs. THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Pet. Counsel

S. Ramanan

Res. Counsel

G. Nanmaran

Petitioner / Applicant	ZAMA & CO.
Respondent	THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER & OTHERS
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Sep 30, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 28309 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 30855 & 30856 of 2024
Citation	2024(9) TAXREPLY 11497
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 With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the respondent and the consequential rejection orders dated 10.05.2024 and 27.08.2024 respectively passed by the respondent and to quash the same. 3. Mr.S.Ramanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on receipt of the Form DRC-01 notice, the petitioner could not file reply immediately due to the reason that the Authorized Person, who is taking care of the statutory compliance was not well, therefore, the failure on the part of the petitioner in giving reply was neither wilful nor wanton, but, in the interregnum, the respondent passed the impugned orders. The learned counsel further submitted that the transaction in dispute was already rectified/reversed by the petitioner during the monthly returns filed for the subsequent months, hence, the petitioner filed ....