^®
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. |

ARCHITA TOUR AND TRAVELS vs. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ALOK MATHUR

Pet. Counsel

Manish Misra

Bhavini Upadhyay

Dileep Pandey

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	ARCHITA TOUR AND TRAVELS
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Oct 1, 2024
Order No.	WRIT TAX No. - 226 of 2024
Citation	2024(10) TAXREPLY 11297
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
1. Heard Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade – II (Appeal – 5), Commercial Tax, whereby he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of adjudicating authority dated 26.07.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 has been passed ex-parte by the appellate authority on the ground that on the date fixed, the counsel of the appellant could not appear before the appellate authority and neither did anyone appear on behalf of the State and the appeal was decided on merits. The appellate authority has further recorded that despite information and service being sufficient upon the appellant, no one had appeared and accordingly the appellate ....