Mohd. Usman vs. State Of U P And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Mohd. Usman, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: an order dated 28.09.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 and an order dated 06.09.2018 passed by respondent no. 2. The impugned appellate order dated 28.09.2021 recorded findings concerning fake transactions and tax evasion. The petitioner did not allege perversity in these findings within the writ petition. The core of the challenge was to the cancellation of the petitioner's firm's registration under the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court held that it found no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders cancelling the registration of the petitioner's firm under the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. This decision was based on the observation that the findings regarding fake transactions and tax evasion, as recorded in the impugned appellate order dated 28.09.2021, had not been alleged to be perverse in the writ petition. The Court explicitly stated that the authorities initiating assessment or other proceedings should not be influenced by any observations made in the body of this order. No specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's firm's registration under the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, given that the findings of fake transactions and tax evasion in the appellate order dated 28.09.2021 were not alleged to be perverse in the writ petition? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of the cancellation or the alleged perversity of the findings. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the learned Standing Counsel, implicitly supported the impugned orders by virtue of the court's dismissal of the petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 533 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mohd. Usman Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 and the impugned order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the respondent no.2."
In the impugned appellate order dated 28.09.2021, findings with regard to the fake transactions and evasion of tax have been recorded which have not been even alleged with perverse in the writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned orders cancelling the registration of the firm of the petitioner under the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that the authorities initiating the assessment proceeding or any other proceedings shall not be infl
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.