Sahu Land Developers PVT. LTD. Lko. Thru. Sanjay Srivastava , Auth. Sigantory vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko. And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in its current form due to the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the UPGST Act. The Court noted the respondent's preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner's arguments concerning parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Tax Authority and the relevant circular. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not availed the statutory appeal mechanism. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act. The appellate authority was instructed to consider all pleas raised by the petitioner, including the issue of parallel proceedings, and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding parallel proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging summary show cause notices issued by the State Tax Authority (Respondent No. 2) for the periods July 2017 to March 2018 and April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also sought to quash orders passed under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, which created a demand of Rs. 5,65,75,202 (CGST + SGST) along with an equal amount of penalty. The petitioner argued that the State Tax Authority should cease proceedings as the Central Tax Authority had already initiated action for the same financial years and the same Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit. The State Tax Authority raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the UPGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the State Tax Authority should have ceased proceedings, given that the Central Tax Authority had already initiated action concerning the same financial years and the same ITC credit benefit? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that proceedings initiated by the Central Tax Authority should be completed by them, and the State Tax Authority should refrain from acting. They relied on a circular from the Commissioner to support this claim. The petitioner also argued that they were facing parallel proceedings from the Central Tax Authority for the same ITC benefit. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent State Tax Authority argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the UPGST Act. They also pointed out that the petitioner had not availed this remedy, which requires a pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount. Furthermore, the respondent stated that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice or appear for a personal hearing, thus preventing the authorities from considering the issue of parallel proceedings.