M/S Swastik Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Swastik Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-1, State Tax, Hamirpur. This order, passed under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, raised a demand of approximately Rs. 4,26,00,000/- against the petitioner. The demand was purportedly based on the non-production of requisite documents and the application of principles from the erstwhile VAT regime concerning the petitioner's work contract. The petitioner contended that the finding regarding non-production of documents was contrary to the record and that the principles applied were inconsistent with the GST Act.
Held
The Court held that the submissions made by the petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of the authority. Instead, the pleas raised pertained to the merits of the order, specifically concerning the factual findings on document production and the application of tax principles. The Court opined that these issues could be appropriately addressed by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to bypass the statutory remedy and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being granted the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the impugned order bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal, given the petitioner's contentions regarding the merits of the demand? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the finding of non-production of documents was factually incorrect and that the authority had wrongly applied VAT regime principles instead of the GST Act. These arguments, the petitioner contended, warranted direct interference by the High Court. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State of U.P. and others) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent would have relied on the availability of the statutory appeal mechanism.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88718-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2349 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Swastik Traders Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., Ankur Agarwal Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition is directed against order dated 27.02.2025 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sector-1, State Tax, Hamirpur under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act').
By the impugned order, the authority has raised demand to the tune of about Rs. 4,26,00,000/- against the petitioner.
Submissions have been made pertaining to the merit of the order passed by the authority, wherein pertaining to the work contract of the petitioner purportedly on account of non production of the requisite documents and/or applying the principles as were existing during the VAT regime, determinations have been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions inter alia indicating that the finding recorded regarding non production of documents is ex-facie contrary to the record and that the principles applied, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore the order impugned, to the said extent, deserves to be set aside.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
we are of the opinion that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner, can appropriately be raised by filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
The submission made, does not touch on the juri iction of the authority so as to require interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the remedy of statutory appeal.
In view of above, the petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Sandeep/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR 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.