^®
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

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

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. |

DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH CONTRACTOR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARUN BHANSALI
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Pet. Counsel

Sanjeet Kumar Yadav

Res. Counsel

A.s.g.i.

Anant Kumar Tiwari

Petitioner / Applicant	DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH CONTRACTOR
Respondent	UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Apr 15, 2025
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1606 of 2025
Citation	2025(4) TAXREPLY 12954
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') whereby a demand to the tune of Rs. 33,17,688/- has been created. 2. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act on account of non-payment of GST to which a reply was filed indicating that as respondent no.3 - Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited has agreed that it will deposit GST, the petitioner cannot be called upon to deposit the same. The respondents came to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner in not depositing the same, based on purported agreement between the parties, amounts to short tax paid and consequently passed the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the petitioner and respondent no.3 had agreed in the work order that GST will be paid by respondent no.3. Relia....