https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758303 The dominant issue was whether proceedings under a show-cause notice for alleged contravention of Section 52, UP VAT Act, could be left in abeyance after protracted appellate pendency. The Court held that prolonged pendency since 2011 prevented final adjudication and therefore directed the respondent-State to initiate/complete any pending proceedings and pass a final order within three months; consequence: the State must decide the matter within that period. Separately, because goods were released by this Court, the bank guarantee need not be renewed after three months. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758303 The dominant issue was whether proceedings under a show-cause notice for alleged contravention of Section 52, UP VAT Act, could be left in abeyance after protracted appellate pendency. The Court held that prolonged pendency since 2011 prevented final adjudication and therefore directed the respondent-State to initiate/complete any pending proceedings and pass a final order within three months; consequence: the State must decide the matter within that period. Separately, because goods were released by this Court, the bank guarantee need not be renewed after three months. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758303