2024 (10) TMI 1602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr. R. Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, the petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espite specific directions of this Court to re-consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a speaking order, the respondent has proceeded to pass a non-speaking order by merely extracting the reply of the petitioner, without any discussion as to the objections put forth by the petitioner. 4. As regards the defects stated in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....may not be mandatory when supplies are effected to persons where the value of taxable supply is below Rs. 50,000/-, which was thereafter increased to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was thus submitted that in respect of such supplies, where the taxable value is below Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1,00,000/-, e-way bills were not generated, which resulted in the alleged discrepancy. The above explanation was not dealt wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 360632 9396530 9396530 Difference 865 331141 331141 The taxpayer reply compared with back office ITC claim and elucidate that the taxpayer claimed excess ITC for IGST Rs. 865, CGST Rs. 331141, SGST Rs. 331141. Hence, this defect is confirmed. Defect No.2 and 3: The tax payer reply not accepted. Hence, this defect is confirmed." 5. The objections of ....