M/S Primeone Workforce PVT. LTD. Thru. Director Mr. Sanjeev Jain Lko And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Lko 4 Others
Held
The Court held that it would not be appropriate to interfere while the appeal is pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner can raise all submissions before the appellate authority, and the protection from recovery granted earlier will continue.
Facts
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their appeal for not depositing 10% of the disputed amount. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order, and the High Court had granted liberty to file an appeal with protection from recovery.
Key Issues
Whether the first appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal for non-deposit of 10% of the disputed amount without deciding on merits. Whether the High Court's previous order protected the petitioner from the 10% deposit requirement.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 77
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63649 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 232 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Primeone Workforce Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Sanjeev Jain Lko And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Lko 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Shri Bharat Rai Chandani, Advocate along with Shri Anupam Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no. 1 to 4, Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-1, Lucknow whereby he has held that appeal preferred by the petitioner without depositing 10% of the disputed amount would not be maintainable and has also rejected the application for interim relief.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in Bhopal, Madhya Prade
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.