Vimal Kumar v. Union Of India And Another
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Issue and context: months. Yet, without any further notice, on 3.5.2023 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner's registration cancelled Operative disposition: Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as
Result: Disposed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: Provisions recorded in the judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Issue and context: months. Yet, without any further notice, on 3.5.2023 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner's registration cancelled Operative disposition: Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as
- Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
- How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?
Material facts and procedural background
Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:
You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of this notice.
This has reference to your reply dated 17/08/2022 in response to the notice to show cause dated 04/08/2022 Whereas the undersigned has examined your reply and submissions made at the time of hearing, and is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reason(s).
Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions
The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.
Operative decision and relief
The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION
Full judgment text verified from the issuing court's official e-AHCR database and packaged as a sanitized readable rendition; it is not represented as the court's original-layout PDF. Open issuing-court source.
Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING
No later-treatment determination is claimed; review, appeal, SLP and subsequent-treatment checks remain open as stated.
Release decision: Published as index,follow with source format and later-history limitations disclosed. Closure register checked 2026-08-11; source-format and later-treatment checks remain visible controls, not hidden assumptions.
Ratio and legal principle
The narrow proposition associated with Vimal Kumar v. Union Of India And Another concerns issue and context: months. yet, without any further notice, on 3.5.2023 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner's registration cancelled operative disposition: accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 1296 of 2023.
For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: months. Yet, without any further notice, on 3.5.2023 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner's registration cancelled Operative disposition: Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—Provisions recorded in the judgment—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.
The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.
Practitioner action points
- Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
- Match the statutory version of Provisions recorded in the judgment and the decision date 2023-11-08; do not assume the current text is identical.
- Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
- Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
- Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Full judgment text verified from the issuing court's official e-AHCR database and packaged as a sanitized readable rendition; it is not represented as the court's original-layout PDF. |
| Later history | REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY · index,follow |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment’s narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The dispute raises the same issue described above.
- The same statutory provisions and materially similar version apply.
- The procedural stage, burden of proof and challenged action are comparable.
- The documentary record answers the same evidentiary questions considered by the forum.
Weaker or distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes, limits or explains the position.
- The statutory period, jurisdiction or procedural route differs.
- The evidence or chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured, waived or absent in the user’s case.
Detailed reliance and distinction analysis
Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Vimal Kumar v. Union Of India And Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 1296 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-11-08. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.
Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.; Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.
Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Provisions recorded in the judgment. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.
Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.
Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.
History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Vimal Kumar v. Union Of India And Another?
Issue and context: months. Yet, without any further notice, on 3.5.2023 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner's registration cancelled Operative disposition: Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as
Which forum and case number decided it?
Allahabad High Court decided WRIT TAX No. 1296 of 2023 on 2023-11-08.
Who constituted the coram?
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.; Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J..
What result is recorded?
Disposed. Read the operative paragraphs above and the full packaged record for the precise relief.
Which provisions should be checked?
Provisions recorded in the judgment. Verify the version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the same core issue, statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence are present.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, relief sought, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate, review, SLP and later-treatment history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- Provisions in judgment — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
- M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
- VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed
- M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North — Delhi High Court · Disposed
- M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed
Related Finin2min resources
- Case Law Hub
- Search all 792 judgments
- Explore Appeals & Limitation
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.