^®
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. |

LIMTON METALS LIMITED & ANOTHER vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT, LALBAZAR RANGE III & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Rita Mukherjee

Abhijit Das

Res. Counsel

Shiv Shankar Banerjee

Abhradip Maity

Petitioner / Applicant	LIMTON METALS LIMITED & ANOTHER
Respondent	THE SUPERINTENDENT, LALBAZAR RANGE III & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Jun 26, 2024
Order No.	W. P. A 11277 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 10339
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Rule 25

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
JUDGMENT RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J: 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the show cause notice dated 19th January, 2024, for cancellation of the petitioner no. 1’s registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) as also the order dated 31st January, 2024 cancelling the petitioner no. 1’s registration under the said Act. 2. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioners by placing reliance on the aforesaid show cause notice submits that the same has not been issued in consonance with the provisions of Section 29 of the said Act. It is submitted that the show-cause notice does not disclose reasons as to why the petitioner no. 1’s registration under the said Act is liable to be cancelled. Under the column reasons, “others” have been mentioned. According to the petitioners, the word “others” has not been specified as a g....