Case Title | Kashi Bartan Bhandar Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Pankaj Mithal Justice Ashok Kumar |
Citation | 2018 (10) GSTPanacea 45 HC Allahabad WRIT TAX No. – 913 of 2018 |
Judgement Date | 30 October 2018 |
The proceedings commenced with arguments presented by Ms. Pooja Talwar, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.B. Tripathi, serving as Special Counsel on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Sector-18, Varanasi. The extensive exchange of pleadings between the parties has been meticulously reviewed by the court.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to contest the order dated 27th January 2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Sector-18, Varanasi. This order resulted in the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration as a dealer under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (U.P. G.S.T.) Act.
Central to the petitioner’s argument, as articulated by their learned counsel, is the assertion that the aforementioned order violates fundamental principles of natural justice. It is contended that the show-cause notice, purportedly dispatched to the petitioner on 18th January 2018, failed to comply with prescribed procedural norms. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that the notice was not transmitted through an appropriate mode as mandated by the governing legislation and was never effectively served upon them.
This perceived procedural irregularity forms the crux of the petitioner’s challenge against the cancellation of their registration. The petitioner contends that due process was compromised, thereby prejudicing their right to a fair and unbiased adjudication of the matter. The effective service of a notice is crucial as it ensures that the recipient is duly informed of the allegations and is afforded adequate opportunity to respond, thereby safeguarding their right to be heard.
In evaluating the merits of the petitioner’s plea, the court must delve into whether the procedural safeguards enshrined in the law were meticulously observed during the issuance and service of the impugned notice. The outcome of this case hinges on the determination of whether the administrative actions complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Such considerations are pivotal in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the petitioner and ensuring the integrity of the administrative process under the U.P. G.S.T. Act.
Therefore, the judicial scrutiny of this matter is essential not only to address the immediate grievance of the petitioner but also to uphold the broader principles of due process and fairness in administrative proceedings. The resolution of this case will provide clarity on the standards governing the issuance and service of notices under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, thereby contributing to the development of jurisprudence in matters concerning taxation and administrative law.
urthermore, another significant contention raised is that the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration was based merely on prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner was not conducting any business, without arriving at a final conclusion on the matter. This procedural aspect forms a crucial element of the petitioner’s argument against the validity of the registration cancellation.
In response to this argument, Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Special Counsel representing the Assistant Commissioner, offered a rebuttal. He contended that the show-cause notice was indeed dispatched to the petitioner’s designated e-mail address as provided by them. Additionally, efforts were made to serve the notice through a messenger and by affixing it at a conspicuous place at the petitioner’s business premises.
When queried specifically about the basis upon which the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the petitioner was not engaged in any business and that their business operations were inactive, Sri C.B. Tripathi was unable to substantiate with any concrete evidence or material. His submission primarily rested on the fact that during the visit of the messenger to the petitioner’s business location, no one was present, leading to an assumption that the business might be temporarily closed.
This exchange underscores a critical aspect of the dispute — the adequacy of evidence and procedural fairness in arriving at the decision to cancel the petitioner’s registration. The petitioner contends that such presumptions without conclusive evidence violate principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing and a reasoned decision based on substantiated facts. The reliance on presumptions rather than substantive evidence raises questions about the procedural integrity of the administrative action taken against the petitioner under the U.P. G.S.T. Act.
Therefore, the court’s examination will need to assess whether the administrative actions were conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether they respected the fundamental rights of the petitioner to due process and procedural fairness. This scrutiny is vital not only for resolving the immediate dispute but also for ensuring the consistency and integrity of administrative decisions in matters concerning taxation and business regulation.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law: