M/S Jagjit Enterprises PVT. LTD. Thru. Authorized Signatory Harmeet Mann vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1337 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.
It has further been prayed to direct the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 05.02.2024, the respondent no. 3 had issued a show cause notice Form DRC-01 u/s 125 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 2017) and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 was passed by the respondent no. 3-Assessing Authority without fixing the date for personal hearing and made a demand of Rs. 40000/-, which is against the Section 125 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act wherein the maximum penalty prescribed, which could be imposed is Rs. 25000/-. The respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 has quoted the Section 125 of U.P.G.S.T. Act, despite that cost of Rs. 40000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that against the penalty order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, which was also dismissed by passing an order dated 23.09.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amrendra Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Jagjit Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Harmeet Mann .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Shri Sanjai Sarin, learned Standing Counsel has very fairly submitted that the impugned orders has been passed against the statutory provisions and Section 125 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the statutory provisions, as discussed above, thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. As such, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders herein dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 are set aside. However, it is open for the respondent no. 3 to pass afresh order in the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 Ashish WTAX No. 1337 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.