^®
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. |

KAMLA VOHRA vs. SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 52
(Delhi High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

VIBHU BAKHRU
SACHIN DATTA

Pet. Counsel

Sumit K. Batra

Manish Khurana

Priyanka Jindal

Res. Counsel

Avishkar Singhvi

Shubham Kumar

Vivek Kumar Singh

Petitioner / Applicant	KAMLA VOHRA
Respondent	SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 52
Court	Delhi High Court
State	Delhi
Date	Jul 10, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (C) 9261/2024 & CM APPL. 37933/2024 (Stay)
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10203
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 73

☍

Section 169

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 08.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN). 2. The petitioner claims that the impugned SCN was not received and therefore she neither filed a reply nor appeared before the concerned authorities. 3. The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices’ which the petitioner claims was not easily accessible. It is contended that the show cause notices were required to be placed under the heading of ‘Notices’ but the same was not done. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by earlier decisions of this Court, including in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of I....