^®
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. |

VIVAAN ENTERPRISES vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI

Pet. Counsel

Shubham Agrawal

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	VIVAAN ENTERPRISES
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Oct 13, 2023
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1023 of 2023
Citation	2023(10) TAXREPLY 8137
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 Petitioner had a Trading unit which was duly registered with the GST. The registration was cancelled on 22.10.2019 with effect from 14.08.2019. At the time of cancellation of registration, there was no tax liability existing against the petitioner. It appears that subsequent, in point of time, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, in respect of transactions undertaken prior to 14.08.2019, after service of notice on the GST portal which was intimated to the accountant of the firm, while e-mail of the accountant was created when he was working for the firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the firm itself was deregistered, the authorities were expected to serve notices upon the petitioner and after such service of notice alone, the proceedings could have progressed further. It is stated that notice sent on the e-mail of the accountant, created prior to deregistration of firm cannot be construed as service of notice. It is also submitted t....