M/S Hind Timber Merchant vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to submit a reply to the letter dated August 1, 2018, within 10 days. Upon receipt of this reply, the fourth respondent (Deputy Commissioner) is directed to consider it in light of the documents submitted by the petitioner supporting their claim. The Deputy Commissioner must then pass a speaking order within 15 days of receiving the reply. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the case. Following this, the petitioner is free to approach the Mandi Samiti to request the issuance of gate-passes. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires an opportunity for the assessee to respond to adverse findings before consequential actions are taken, and the High Court can direct such reconsideration in writ proceedings when no objection is raised by the revenue.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Hind Timber Merchant, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 1, 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax (Sales Tax). This order stated that the petitioners had not paid GST under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, respondent no. 3, the Mandi Samiti, stopped issuing gate-passes to the petitioners. The petitioner sought permission to submit a reply to the impugned order and requested directions for its fresh consideration within a specified timeframe. The respondents had no objection to this course of action.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a reply to the order dated August 1, 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax (Sales Tax)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to approach the fourth respondent (Deputy Commissioner) with a reply to the letter dated August 1, 2018. They sought directions for the respondent to consider their reply and decide the matter afresh within a defined period. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the respondents had no objection to the passing of an order allowing the petitioner to submit a reply and have the matter reconsidered.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34345 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Hind Timber Merchant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Mr. P. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This petition is against the order dated 1.8.2018 issued by respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax (Sales Tax), wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not paid GST, as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and in view of this order, respondent no.3-Mandi Samiti has stopped issuing gate-passes to the petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are allowed to approach the fourth respondent by way of reply to the letter dated 1.8.2018 and directions are issued to consider their reply and decide the mater afresh within time frame. Counsel for respondents has no objection for passing such an order.
Hence, we dispose of the writ petition by the following order.
The petitio
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.