Hind Timber Merchant VS State Of U.P

This petition challenges an order issued on August 1, 2018, by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax (Sales Tax), referred to as respondent no.4. The order asserts that the petitioners have failed to pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioners argue that the order is unjust and possibly based on inaccurate information or misinterpretation of their tax compliance status.

Key points of the petition include:

1. Dispute on GST Payment Status: The petitioners claim that they have indeed complied with GST payment requirements and that the assertion in the order is incorrect.

2. Procedural Issues: The petitioners may highlight procedural lapses in the issuance of the order. This could involve a lack of proper notice, an inadequate opportunity for the petitioners to present their case, or a failure to adhere to statutory procedures.

3. Documentation and Evidence: The petition likely includes documentation and evidence demonstrating the petitioners’ compliance with GST payments. This could include payment receipts, tax returns, and other relevant records.

4. Legal Grounds: The petition outlines the legal grounds for challenging the order. This might include references to specific provisions of tax law, procedural regulations, and past judicial precedents supporting their position.

5. Request for Relief: The petitioners are seeking relief from the court, which could involve the quashing of the impugned order, a declaration affirming their compliance with GST requirements, and possibly an injunction preventing any adverse actions based on the disputed order.

6. Impact on Petitioners: The petition may describe the adverse impact of the order on the petitioners’ business operations and financial status, emphasizing the urgency and importance of judicial intervention.

The petition essentially contests the validity of the order by the Deputy Commissioner and seeks judicial review to overturn the decision, asserting that the petitioners have fulfilled their GST obligations and that the order is both procedurally and substantively flawed.

This petition challenges the order dated August 1, 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB) of the Commercial Tax (Sales Tax) department. The petitioners argue that this order erroneously states that they have not paid the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as required by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As a consequence of this order, Mandi Samiti, represented by respondent no.3, has ceased issuing gate-passes to the petitioners. The gate-passes are necessary for the petitioners to continue their business operations, and the refusal to issue them has significantly hindered their ability to function effectively.

The petitioners contend that the Deputy Commissioner’s order is unjust and based on incorrect information regarding their GST payments. They assert that they have complied with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and any allegation of non-payment is unfounded. The petitioners claim that the order does not provide any substantive evidence or detailed explanation of their purported non-compliance with GST regulations.

Moreover, the petitioners argue that the order has caused undue hardship and financial losses, as the inability to obtain gate-passes from Mandi Samiti has disrupted their business activities. They highlight that the gate-passes are critical for the transportation and sale of their goods, and without them, their operations are effectively paralyzed.

The petitioners seek judicial intervention to overturn the order dated August 1, 2018. They request that the court direct the Deputy Commissioner to reassess their compliance with GST provisions accurately and impartially. Additionally, they seek a mandate for Mandi Samiti to resume issuing gate-passes immediately, enabling them to continue their business without further obstruction.

In summary, the petition challenges the validity and fairness of the Deputy Commissioner’s order, arguing that it is based on incorrect assertions of GST non-payment. The petitioners seek relief from the court to resume their business operations unhindered and to rectify any misconceptions regarding their GST compliance.

The petition challenges an order dated August 1, 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB) of Commercial Tax (Sales Tax), referred to as respondent no. 4. The order states that the petitioners have not complied with the payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) as mandated by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As a result of this non-compliance, the Mandi Samiti, referred to as respondent no. 3, has ceased issuing gate-passes to the petitioners.

Petitioners’ Position:

1. The petitioners’ counsel contends that the petitioners seek permission to respond to the letter dated August 1, 2018, by submitting a reply to the fourth respondent.

2. They request that an order be passed directing the fourth respondent to consider their reply and make a fresh decision on the matter within a specified time frame.

Respondents’ Position:

1. The respondents’ counsel has no objections to the petitioners’ request and agrees to the proposed course of action.

Court’s Order:

1. Considering the submissions from both sides, the court decides to dispose of the writ petition with the following directive:

2. The petitioners are permitted to approach the fourth respondent with a reply to the letter dated August 1, 2018.

3. The fourth respondent is directed to review the petitioners’ reply and make a new decision regarding the matter within a designated timeframe.

The court’s decision aims to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to address the concerns raised in the original order while ensuring that the matter is resolved promptly and fairly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: