SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1865

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Shubham Steel Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aditya Pandey.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

JUDGMENT

Saumitra Dayal Singh and Manjive Shukla, JJ.

Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 20.11.2023 passed on FORM GST DRC-07 under Section 74 (9) of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. Merit issues apart, it is undisputed that on 20.05.2023 a notice under Section 74 of the Act, was issued to the petitioner granting one month time to make compliance. Since the petitioner chose to contest the proceedings, on 13.06.2023 notice on DRC-01 was issued granting the petitioner 15 days time to file reply. At that stage a typographical error appears to have crept in the proceedings in as much as the notice issued on DRC-01 was wrongly described to be issued under Section 74(5) of the Act in place of section 74 (1) of the Act.

4. That error apart, it is also undisputed to the respondent that the petitioner did file reply to the notice on 26.07.2023. Thereafter no proceeding appears to have been conducted over a long period of four months. For the first time on 31.10.2023 reminder notice was issued grant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top