M/S Success Vyapar Limited vs. State Of U P And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Success Vyapar Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petition sought to quash an order dated 03.07.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. It also sought a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to supply a copy of an enquiry report and a statement of a director of Sabri Traders, which were relied upon by Respondent No. 3. Furthermore, the petitioner sought a declaration that Section 169 of the GST Act is unconstitutional concerning dealers whose businesses have closed. The respondent State argued that the petition was filed suppressing material facts regarding the service of notice.

Held

The petitioner, M/s Success Vyapar Limited, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State did not object to this request. In view of the petitioner's submission and the lack of objection from the respondents, the Court decided to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the violation of natural justice, the supply of documents, or the constitutionality of Section 169 of the GST Act, as the petition was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication on these points. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 03.07.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to supply the copy of the enquiry report and the statement of the director of Sabri Traders, as sought by the petitioner? 3. Whether Section 169 of the GST Act is unconstitutional in relation to dealers whose businesses have closed, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order passed by Respondent No. 3 violated principles of natural justice and sought the supply of crucial documents. The petitioner also challenged the constitutionality of Section 169 of the GST Act. The respondent State argued that the writ petition was filed suppressing material facts concerning the service of notice.