M/S Faraim Isarail And Company Navin Phal Evam Sabji Mandi vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that the petitioner had not deposited the required 50% of the bid amount plus GST within the stipulated 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid, as per the terms and conditions of the auction notification. The Court found the writ petition to be lacking in merit. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition. However, the Court also noted that if the petitioner wished, they could make an application for the refund of the amount deposited, which would be considered in accordance with the Act/Rules of the Mandi Parishad. No specific GST provisions were directly interpreted or applied to decide the merits of the case; the decision rested on the contractual obligations of the auction.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Faraim Isarail And Company, participated in an auction for a shop in the Mandi Parishad in June 2018 and was the highest bidder. As per the auction terms, 50% of the bid amount plus GST was to be deposited within 15 days of bid acceptance. The petitioner claims to have deposited Rs. 42,07,000/- pursuant to a previous High Court order dated 12.10.2018, which represented fifty percent of the bid money. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner admittedly had not deposited the required amount till the date of the current writ petition. The writ petition sought relief from the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief from this Court, given the admitted non-compliance with the deposit terms of the auction notification? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had already deposited over Rs. 40,00,000/- with the Mandi Parishad. The State-respondents and Mandi Parishad counsel were present, but their specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment, other than the implicit contention that the petitioner had not complied with the deposit terms. The Court's finding that no relief can be granted suggests a focus on the petitioner's admitted non-compliance with the deposit conditions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37409 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Faraim Isarail And Company Navin Phal Evam Sabji Mandi Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Mandi Parishad.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court that pursuant to the earlier order of the High Court dated 12.10.2018 passed in Writ C No.34700 of 2018, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 42,07,000/- towards fifty percent of bid money for allotment of shop in Mandi Parishad.
It is to be noted that auction took place in June, 2018 and the petitioner was the highest bidder as per the terms and conditions of the auction notification. From the date of acceptance of the bid, 50% of bid amount plus GST was to be deposited within 15 days. Admittedly, till date the petitioner has not deposited that amount.
That being the case, no relief can be
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.