^®
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. |

MAA DURGA AUTO SALES vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARUN BHANSALI
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Pet. Counsel

Om Prakash Shukla

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Ankur Agarwal

Petitioner / Applicant	MAA DURGA AUTO SALES
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Apr 7, 2025
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1491 of 2025
Citation	2025(4) TAXREPLY 12901
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. This writ petition is directed against the undated demand order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Prayagraj under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel with reference to judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. : Writ Tax No.606 of 2025, decided on 11.03.2025, made submissions that the order impugned does not fulfill the requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned, however, does not dispute that the issue as raised is covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra). 4. In the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra), this Court, after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:- &qu....