^®
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. |

GSV PRODUCTS vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
DONADI RAMESH

Pet. Counsel

Suyash Agarwal

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	GSV PRODUCTS
Respondent	ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	May 22, 2024
Order No.	Civil Misc Review Application No. - 212 of 2024
Citation	2024(5) TAXREPLY 9743
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
ORDER 1. Heard Shri Suyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Review application has been pressed on the ground that the petition filed by the petitioner did not arise from proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. In fact, the writ petition arose from proceedings under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.25291 of 2019 is not applicable. According to learned counsel for the applicant, error has crept in the order of this Court. It may be rectified. 3. It is not in dispute that the order of which review has been sought - dated 05.08.2021, was not passed on an independent application of mind of this Court to the merits of the dispute. That order was passed only to give recognition to the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 22.11.2019 wherein it was observed as below: "In view of this order, all the Writ P....