^®
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. |

RAJ INFRA STRUCTURE vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARUN BHANSALI
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Pet. Counsel

Ravi Pratap Singh

Tanmay Sadh

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Ankur Agarwal

Petitioner / Applicant	RAJ INFRA STRUCTURE
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Dec 2, 2024
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1831 of 2024
Citation	2024(12) TAXREPLY 11746
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 petition is directed against order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-19, Varanasi under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 whereby demand has been created against the petitioner. 2. Submissions have been made that after filing of response by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act on 15.09.2023, the respondent authorities neither issued any notice of personal hearing nor issued any intimation pertaining to the present proceedings and therefore, as the present proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, petitioner was under reasonable impression that the proceedings have been dropped. However, after a lapse of about four months, a reminder and order impugned came to be uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal, which is evident from Annexure- S.A.-2 of 2nd supplementary affidavit and consequently, the petitioner....