https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792300 Proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act could not be initiated merely on an alleged stock discrepancy and record-keeping breach without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The Court found that proceedings based only on alleged Section 35 violations and stock discrepancy were not maintainable in the manner adopted by the department, so the show cause notice was without jurisdiction. The consequential confiscation order also could not survive and was quashed, with liberty left for refund proceedings and any fresh action in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792300 Proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act could not be initiated merely on an alleged stock discrepancy and record-keeping breach without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The Court found that proceedings based only on alleged Section 35 violations and stock discrepancy were not maintainable in the manner adopted by the department, so the show cause notice was without jurisdiction. The consequential confiscation order also could not survive and was quashed, with liberty left for refund proceedings and any fresh action in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792300