M/S Sawariya Enterprises, Amethi Thru. Proprietor, Surya Kant Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of GST Tax, Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sawariya Enterprises, through its proprietor Surya Kant Pandey, challenged a recovery notice dated 08.08.2024. This recovery notice was issued under Section 79 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, pursuant to an assessment order passed under Section 74(9) of the same Act. The petitioner annexed a copy of the assessment order with the writ petition. The Court noted that the assessment order itself was appealable but had not been challenged by the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that it cannot interfere with the recovery notice dated 08.08.2024. The reasoning was that the recovery notice was a consequential action taken in pursuance of an assessment order passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The Court observed that this assessment order was appealable, but the petitioner had not challenged it. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to intervene in the recovery notice itself. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue other available remedies. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with a recovery notice issued under Section 79 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, when the underlying assessment order passed under Section 74(9) of the Act has not been challenged. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not explicitly argue on this point as their primary challenge was to the recovery notice. However, by filing a writ petition against the recovery notice, they implicitly sought intervention. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the CSC, argued that the recovery notice is merely a consequential action to the assessment order. Since the assessment order, which is appealable, has not been challenged, the Court should not interfere with the recovery notice.