^®
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. |

RASIK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

BHARATI SAPRU
NEERAJ TIWARI

Pet. Counsel

Suyash Agarwal

Res. Counsel

C.s.c

Petitioner / Applicant	RASIK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Respondent	UNION OF INDIA
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Feb 5, 2018
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 131 of 2018
Citation	2018(2) TAXREPLY 3075
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the GST council respondent no.2 to make recommendations to the State Government to extend the time period for filing of GST Tran-1 in the case of the petitioner because his application was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 and he has filed his complete application for the necessary transactional credit. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that despite making several efforts on the last date for filing of the application, the electronic system of the respondent no.2 did not respond, as a result of which the petitioner is likely to suffer loss of the credit that it is entitled to by passage of time. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from ....