^®
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. |

ADITYA DEVELOPERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Bombay High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SONAK
JITENDRA JAIN

Pet. Counsel

Roshil Nichani

Aansh Desai

Pythagoras Legal

Res. Counsel

Jyoti Chavan

Petitioner / Applicant	ADITYA DEVELOPERS
Respondent	STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Court	Bombay High Court
State	Maharashtra
Date	Nov 11, 2024
Order No.	WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 28181 OF 2024 Aditya
Citation	2024(11) TAXREPLY 11644
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
PC:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09 April 2021 made by the 3rd respondent cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. 4. The impugned order in the very first sentence refers to the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice dated 10 November 2020, filed on 25 November 2020. However, after this, it is stated that no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted. This appears to be in contradiction in terms and indicative of non-application of mind. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a reply dated 25 November 2020 to the show cause notice dated 10 November 2020. This does not appear to have been considered before making the impugned order dated 09 April 2021. Besides, it is admitted by Ms Chavan, learned Addl. GP that no hearing had been given to ....