2025 (2) TMI 928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L, J. Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2, Kanpur as well as the impugned order dated 10.09.2018 read with order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 under section 130 of the GST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., which was made under Section 67 of the UPGST Act, proceeded with the notice under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 32. He next submits that even assuming without admitting that if the goods were found in excess, then the proceedings should have been initiated as per Sections 73 & 74 of the Act. He further submits that as per Section 35 (3) of the Act, proceedings under Section 130 of the UPG....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tock was found. On the said basis, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 130 of the GST Act. The issue in hand is no more res integra. This Court in various cases has held that at the time of survey, if some discrepancy in stock is found against the registered dealer, then the proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act ought to have been initiated, instead of ....