Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
M/s.Jainam Steels Rep by its Proprietor, Mr.Pintu – Appellant
Versus
Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the validity of the recovery notice. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. restrictions placed on relief due to prior rejections. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Mrs.Vasantha Mala, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry)
takes notice for the Respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.
3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery notice dated 23.02.2024, whereby the amount confirmed by orders dated 03.02.2023 passed for the tax period 2018-19 and order dated
07.02.2023 for the tax period 2019-20 has been demanded.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned recovery notice has been issued even without awaiting for the disposal of the application filed on 27.04.2023 under Section 161 of the respective GST Enactment Act against the aforesaid orders dated 03.02.2023 and 07.02.2023.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the rectification applications were not maintainable and had been rejected by an order dated 27.01.2025. As such, no scope for grant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
