M/S Rana Pratap Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rana Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court. The petition sought to quash an order/notice dated 06.05.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Khand 3, Bhadohi. This order imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,32,31,003/-, which included GST on royalty, GST on mineral sales, GST on a Poclain machine used on a rental basis, penalty on GST, and interest on the penalty. The petitioner contended that their reply to the authorities was rejected without proper consideration. The Court noted that the issue of whether the petitioner's reply was correctly considered is a matter that can be addressed in an appeal.

Held

The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner's reply was considered correctly or not is a subject matter that can be taken up in appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. Since the limitation period for filing the appeal had not yet expired, the Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal. Upon the filing of the appeal, the appellate authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, erred in rejecting the petitioner's reply without proper consideration, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the consideration of reply and adherence to due process). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the authorities had rejected their reply without delving into its contents, implying a failure to consider the merits of their defense. This, they contended, constituted a procedural irregularity and a denial of a fair hearing. Revenue's Argument: The respondent revenue authorities did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment regarding the consideration of the petitioner's reply. However, their action of issuing the penalty order implies a stance that the petitioner's submissions were found to be insufficient or invalid. 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available for redressal of their grievances? (Question of law, concerning the availability of statutory appeal).