^®
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. |

VIABHAV EDIBLE PVT. LTD. vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
VINOD DIWAKAR JJ.

Pet. Counsel

Aditya Pandey

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	VIABHAV EDIBLE PVT. LTD.
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Aug 10, 2023
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 812 of 2021
Citation	2023(8) TAXREPLY 7742
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 1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the petitioner Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Joint Commissioner Circle) Commercial Tax, Zone-1, Kanpur, passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. GST Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby tax Rs. 10,59,85,433.90, interest Rs. 7,13,96,434.00 and penalty Rs. 10,59,85,433.90 totalling to Rs. 28,33,67,301.80 have been imposed. Though, normally the rule of alternative remedy may have been enforced against the petitioners, the present petition was entertained, on the contention that there was no surviving jurisdiction to pass that order inasmuch as, the adjudication proceedings arose from an earlier proceedings under Section 67 of the Act that led to an order dated 18.2.2019 being passed under Section 130(2) of the Act making the same allegations as have arisen in the adjudication proceedi....