^®
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. |

DINESH KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE 2 AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PIYUSH AGRAWAL

Pet. Counsel

Aditya Pandey

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Ravi Shanker Pandey

Petitioner / Applicant	DINESH KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR
Respondent	ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE 2 AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Jul 25, 2024
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1082 of 2022
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10343
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 12

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 in GST Appeal No.28/2020, Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of Cement, Mauram and Saria. He further submits that on 24.08.2018, petitioner's business premises has been surveyed and only on the basis of eye measurement, it was held that the stock was excess and the goods were confiscated. Thereafter, notice was issued and the ex-parte impugned order was passed on 23.02.2019 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.03.2022. He further submits that the survey, which was made under Section 67 of the UPGST Act (f....