2025 (12) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Government Advocate for the Respondents. 3. In W.P.No.44477 of 2025, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order bearing Ref.No.ZD330824220770L dated 24.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the 1st Respondent for the Tax Period from April 2019 to March 2020. 4. W.P.No.44477 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner after the application filed by the Petitioner on 24.11.2024, to rectify the aforesaid impugned Order dated 24.08.2024 was partly answered in favour of the Petitioner vide Order dated 18.03.2025 and another application filed on 24.03.2025 came to be rejected vide Order dated 31.03.2025 by the 2nd Respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that alth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70 and in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, (2009) 5 SCC 791 and also in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440. 10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents, this Court is of the view the challenge to the impugned Order dated 24.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments pursuant to the Show Cause Notice in FORM DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024 is without any merits as the said Order has been revised by Order dated 18.03.2025. 11. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to furnish certain documents vide Notices dated 05.12.2024 and 25.01.2025 which were not responded by the Petitioner. 15. Therefore, before confirming the tax demand vide Order dated 18.03.2025 for a sum of Rs. 3,85,35,356/-, a proper Notice should have been issued and merely asking the Petitioner to furnish certain documents was not sufficient. At the same time, the Petitioner has also not been vigilant in either approaching this Court earlier or by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority instead the Petitioner filed the application for rectification of order dated 24.03.2025 which has been rejected by Order dated 31.03.2025. 16. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the Pet....