^®
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. |

KALIDAS MEDICAL STORE vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
DONADI RAMESH

Pet. Counsel

Ajay Kumar Yadav

Siddharth Yadav

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	KALIDAS MEDICAL STORE
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Apr 29, 2024
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 693 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 9565
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 Ajay Kumar Yadav along with Shri Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 28.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the U.P. G.S.T Act, 2017. Two objections have been raised. First, it has been submitted that the adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the scope of adjudication notice inasmuch as against show cause notice issued proposing to create demand of GST Rs. 14,45,845.98/-, the impugned order has created demand of Rs. 16,50,391.95/-. 3. That is described as a clear violation of Section 75(7) of the Act. Second, it has been submitted, the essential requirements of rules of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. The date fixed for personal hearing was the same as the date fixed for filing of reply. In that regard reliance has been....