`HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4362 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that once verification of survey of stock was conducted by the authority and any discrepancy was detected in the matter of stock being not entered in the book of accounts which may have been sufficient to draw inference that it amounted a case of evasion of tax under the U.P.G.S.T., then proceedings ought to have been initiated against registered dealer only taking recourse to the provisions contained under Section 73 and 74 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and proceedings under Section 130 of the U.P. GST were not maintainable. Ms. Talwar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of M/s Dayal Product v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and Another being Writ Tax No. 1319 of 2024 decided on 19.2.2025 in which the Court had held thus: "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 section 130 of the GST Act. Reference may be had to S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar (supra), M/s Maa Mahamaya Alloys Private Limited (supra) and M/s Shree Om Steels (supra). " It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the aforesaid judgment, respondent had preferred SLP before Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 44119 of 2025, which came to be dismissed with liberty to respondents to take recourse to appropriate remedies available in law. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the manner in which respondents authorities have proceeded shows exercise of power vitiated for malice in law. I have perused the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority and find it per se bad being de hors the procedure prescribed. In the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Kapoor Auto Garage .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University, (2022) 8 SCC 713, has held thus: "32. Further in Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628] , it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. " It is equally unfortunate that the appellate authority despite noticing the objection raised by the petitioner and the fact that petitioner had produced stock verification register, it rejected the appeal in a quite mechanical manner., In view of above, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the circumstances, the order passed by the assessing authority as well as appellate authority dated 24.2.2025 as well as 29.07.2025 respectively are hereby quashed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, liberty rests with the authorities to take such recourse to proceedings as may be available in law. September 25, 2025 Sanjeev WTAX No. 4362 of 2025 2 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad