M/S Ocean E Mart Thru. Authorized Signatory Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1358 of 2025
Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow Sector-22, Distt- Lucknow i.e. the respondent No.03 in ARN No. AD091250012518A under Section 73 read with section 61 of GST Act for the assessment year 2017-18 thereby the respondent no.3 revised the tax liability, in the interest of justice (Annexure No.01).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal on account of non deposition of disputed tax liability, in the interest of justice (Annexure No.02).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2023 under Section 73 (3) of GST Act under the form of DRC-07 fixing the tax liability against the petitioner's tax discrepancy, in the interest of justice Versus
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ocean E Mart Thru. Authorized Signatory Sandeep Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
(Annexure No.07).
iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing thereby the respondent No.02 to settle the dispute by depositing the amount in the head of IGST and refund the access payment along with the interest of Rs.18% compounding as the petitioner's firm had deposited total tax amount of Rs.1,41,63,327.46/- in terms of CGST and SGST."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that mistakenly the tax that was to be deposited as IGST, had been deposited by the petitioner under the head of CGST and SGST. He submits that he had brought this fact before the knowledge of the original authority under Section 73 (3) of GST Act as well as the appellate authority. However, the authorities did not take this into account and imposed liability on the petitioner for non-payment of tax Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.