^®
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

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

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 VINDHYA VASINI CONSTRUCTIONS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PRITINKER DIWAKER
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Pet. Counsel

Bidhan Chandra Rai

Res. Counsel

Saurabh Pratap Singh

Petitioner / Applicant	MAA VINDHYA VASINI CONSTRUCTIONS
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Sep 6, 2023
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1048 of 2023
Citation	2023(9) TAXREPLY 7924
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER Heard Sri B. C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had carried out certain work contract for the respondents and is entitled to refund of GST @ 18%, however, refund has been granted @ 12%. He submits that he has preferred a representation before the Respondent No.7. He further submits that purpose of filing of the present writ petition shall stand served if the petitioner is permitted to approach the Respondent No.7 by way of appropriate representation, which may be directed to be decided within time frame fixed by this Court. Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that in the eventuality the petitioner files a representation the same shall be duly considered by the Respondent No.7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending and, accordi....