^®
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. |

SAPPHIRE INTERNATIONAL vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE 2 AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SHEKHAR B. SARAF

Pet. Counsel

Suyash Agarwal

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	SAPPHIRE INTERNATIONAL
Respondent	ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE 2 AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 557 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 9486
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 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. 1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an ex party order passed by the appellate authority dated December 7, 2023. 3. The grounds of challenge are that the quantification of liability under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been done under Section 130 of the Act, which is not permissible in law. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on a judgement of this Court in Maa Mahamaya Alloyas Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 6 Centax 62 (All.), wherein Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. had penned the following:- "11. The issue raised herein in Issue no. 1 is marked re....