Mittal Plywood And Furniture VS State Of Uttar Pradesh

The petitioner, represented by learned counsel, has filed a writ petition against the State-respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel. The petition seeks several reliefs pertaining to orders passed under the U.P.GST Act for the tax period April 2018-March 2019 (F.Y. 2018-19).

Firstly, the petitioner requests a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the U.P.GST Act and Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.03.2022 issued by Respondent No.2. It is alleged that these actions were taken in violation of provisions of the Act and the principle of natural justice.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks another writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed under Section 161 of the GST Act and GST DRC-08 dated 11.04.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 for the same tax period (April 2018-March 2019).

Lastly, the petitioner requests a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 not to take any coercive action against them.

In summary, the writ petition challenges the legality and procedural fairness of the orders passed by Respondent No.2 under the U.P.GST Act for the tax period April 2018-March 2019 and seeks appropriate relief from the court.

The proceedings under scrutiny involve a writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks several reliefs regarding orders issued under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The petitioner is represented by learned counsel, while the State-respondents are represented by the learned Standing Counsel.

The primary reliefs sought in the petition include quashing of orders passed under Sections 74 and 161 of the U.P. GST Act, along with associated forms, for the tax period spanning April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contends that these orders were issued in violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

The impugned orders were issued on 31.03.2022 and 11.04.2022 under Sections 74 and 161 of the U.P. GST Act, respectively. The order under Section 74, rejecting the petitioner’s adjournment application, was followed by a rectification order under Section 161.

The sequence of events reveals that the respondent no.2 initially issued a notice to the petitioner on 15.03.2022, granting 15 days to respond to alleged unverified transactions totaling Rs.3,19,22,729/-. Subsequently, on 30.03.2022, the petitioner’s adjournment application was rejected, leading to the issuance of the impugned order under Section 74.

The petitioner contends that the orders were passed without providing adequate opportunity to present their case and were therefore violative of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is argued that the actions of the respondent no.2 were not in accordance with statutory provisions.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner seeks the issuance of writs of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and a mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refrain from taking coercive action against them.

The case involves a complex interplay of legal provisions and procedural irregularities, with both parties presenting their arguments before the court. The outcome of the petition hinges on the court’s interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and its assessment of procedural fairness in the actions of the respondent authority.

In the case at hand, the petitioner, represented by learned counsel, has filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including the quashing of orders passed under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act and related forms issued by the State respondents. The impugned orders, dated 31.03.2022 and 11.04.2022, concern tax assessments for the period from April 2018 to March 2019.

The petitioner contests the validity of these orders on grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. Specifically, it is argued that the petitioner’s adjournment application, seeking time to respond to notices regarding alleged unverified transactions, was unreasonably rejected by the respondent authority. Despite providing cause for the adjournment, the petitioner’s request was dismissed, leading to the issuance of adverse tax assessments.

It is evident from the record that the respondent authority failed to adhere to fundamental principles of natural justice by rejecting the petitioner’s adjournment application without sufficient cause. This action constitutes a gross breach of procedural fairness.

In light of these deficiencies, the Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments and proceeds to quash the impugned assessment orders and the subsequent rectification order. The matter is remitted back to the respondent authority with directions to reconsider the case, allowing the petitioner reasonable time to respond and affording a fair opportunity for a hearing.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions, ensuring that due process is upheld in the adjudication of the petitioner’s tax liabilities under the UPGST Act.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: