Integrated Tech 9 Labs Private Limited VS The State of Uttar Pradesh

In a recent legal proceeding, the court heard arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the special counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner sought to challenge an order issued on January 31, 2018, by the Assistant Commissioner U.P. Goods and Service Tax, Mobile Squad, Fifth Unit, NOIDA (referred to as respondent No. 3). The petitioner requested the court to quash this order and halt any further actions based on it.

It was noted that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (Writ Tax No. 142 of 2018) against the State of U.P., contesting a detention/seizure order. Although this initial petition was later amended to include a challenge to the January 31, 2018 order, it was ultimately dismissed without a substantive decision on the validity of the latter order.

The court emphasized that with the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the challenge to the January 31, 2018 order effectively reached a conclusion. Allowing the petitioner to re-challenge the same order in the current writ petition would essentially constitute filing successive petitions for the same cause of action, which is legally impermissible. The principle was reiterated that successive writ petitions for identical causes of action are not maintainable, and any issues not previously addressed in the earlier petition are deemed to have been adjudicated or declined.

Furthermore, it was highlighted that the goods seized from the petitioner had already been released upon the deposit or submission of the specified security amount, as required by Section 129(3) of the Act. This action, in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1) of the Act, rendered the matter final, as stated in Section 129(5) of the Act.

Consequently, the court found no merit in the current petition, as the issues raised had already been addressed or resolved through previous legal proceedings and actions taken pursuant to statutory provisions.

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner U.P. Goods and Service Tax. The petitioner sought the quashing of the said order and requested that no further action be taken based on it. The petitioner had previously filed another writ petition, which included a challenge to the same order but was dismissed without addressing the validity of the order in question.

The court pointed out that since the earlier writ petition was dismissed without adjudicating the validity of the order, the matter regarding the challenge to the order had effectively come to an end. Allowing the petitioner to challenge the same order again would amount to filing successive writ petitions for the same cause of action, which is not permissible under settled law. It was emphasized that all questions related to the cause of action should have been raised in the earlier petition, and any issues not addressed would be considered adjudicated or declined.

Furthermore, it was noted that the seized goods of the petitioner had already been released after complying with the necessary procedures under the relevant provisions of the law. This finalizes the matter as per the provisions of the Act.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the current petition and dismissed it. However, the petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies against the order dismissing the earlier petition, if desired.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: