M/S Shri Girraj Misthan Bhandar vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shri Girraj Misthan Bhandar, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated January 15, 2025, and a subsequent order dated May 23, 2025, both issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Sector 3, Mathura. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been dropped. Consequently, the petitioner argued that the new proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the same Act were without legal basis. The impugned show cause notice and order were the subject of the challenge.
Held
The Court held that the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were without any basis in law, given that the prior proceedings under Section 130 of the same Act had been dropped. The Court reasoned that the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 74, following the dropping of proceedings under Section 130, rendered the impugned show cause notice and order legally unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that once proceedings under a specific section of the GST Act are dropped, initiating fresh proceedings under another section for the same matter without a valid legal foundation is impermissible. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice and order. The writ petition was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are legally sustainable when prior proceedings under Section 130 of the same Act concerning the same matter have been dropped? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the proceedings under Section 130 of the Act were dropped, any subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act for the same issue are without any basis in law and are therefore liable to be quashed. The petitioner relied on the principle that once a specific action under one provision is concluded or dropped, initiating a parallel or subsequent action under another provision for the same underlying cause without proper justification is impermissible. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
Sections Cited
Section 130, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4406 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated January 15, 2025 and the subsequent order dated May 23, 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction, Sector 3, Mathura, being the respondent No.2 herein.
The factual matrix of the present case indicates that the proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 130 of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 have been dropped.
In light of the same, the proceedings that have now been initiated under Section 74 of the aforesaid Act are without any basis in law. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice and the order are quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. September 22, 2025 Kuldeep Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) M/S Shri Girraj Misthan Bhandar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.