M/S Moti Lal And Sons vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Moti Lal and Sons, is aggrieved by an order dated 26.08.2024, passed by the respondent adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was initially issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act, to which no response was provided. Subsequently, a notice under Section 73 was issued. The petitioner responded by stating that any difference had been filed under DRC-03 and provided an ARN, claiming the PDF was not downloadable. The petitioner did not file any further response or objection to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order raising the demand as indicated in the show cause notice. The present petition was filed on 08.05.2025, with the petitioner attributing the delay to their accountant being out of the city.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's response to the show cause notice was insufficient, merely indicating an intention to deposit the amount under DRC-03 and providing an ARN, without raising any specific objections to the demand raised. The Court found no necessity for the authority to provide a further opportunity, other than to examine if the amount had been deposited. The Court also noted the significant delay in filing the writ petition, attributing it to a "lackluster attitude" on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a vague response to a show cause notice, lacking specific objections, does not warrant interference on grounds of violation of natural justice, especially when coupled with a substantial delay in approaching the court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 26.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the authority was not justified in passing the order as it violated principles of natural justice. They argued that they had responded by indicating the difference was filed under DRC-03 and provided an ARN, explaining the PDF was not downloadable. The petitioner claimed they should have been given a further opportunity. The respondent (State of U.P.) argued that the petitioner's response to the show cause notice was limited to indicating the intention to deposit under DRC-03 and providing an ARN, without raising any objection to the subject matter of the demand. They contended that no further opportunity was necessary beyond verifying the deposit, and that the petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition indicated a lackadaisical attitude.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 61
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82330-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2336 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Moti Lal and Sons Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Mishra,Vishnu Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass, A.C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 26.08.2024, Annexure -1 to the writ petition, whereby demand has been raised under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('Act').
The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act, to which no response was given by the petitioner, which led to issuance of notice under Section 73 of the Act. To the said notice, the petitioner responded by indicating as under : "(ARN) - AD090624053103B FILED DRC-03 Whatever difference there was, it has been filed under DRC-03. The PDF was not downloadable, due to which I have written the ARN".
It appears that after making said indications, the petitioner choose, not to take any further proceedings, which resulted in passing of the order dated 26.08.2024 wherein the respondent adjudicating authority, passed the order impugned raising the demand, as indicated in the show cause notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the authority was not justified in passing the order dated 26.08.2024 as the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Submission has been made that the petitioner had filed the response inter-alia indicating that the difference was filed under DRC-03 and the PDF was not downloaded and therefore, he has written the ARN.
Apparently, except for the said indications, the petitioner did not file any response/raised any objection to the show cause. The authority, as noticed hereinbefore, noticing the contentions and the facts that neither the amount was deposited nor any response was filed, passed the order impugned.
The plea sought to be raised that the respondent was not justified in raising the demand on a particular issue and submissions were sought to be advanced on the subject matter of the said demand, appears to be an afterthought inasmuch any reply to the show cause notice except for indicating that the difference was being filed under DRC-03 and the PDF was not downloaded, not a single word in response to the show cause notice pertaining to the said part of the show cause notice was raised.
Once the response to the show cause notice was only to the effect that the petitioner wanted to deposit the amount through DRC-03, there does not appear to be any necessity for the authority to provide further opportunity to the petitioner, except for examining whether the amount has been deposited or not.
Besides the above, the order was passed way back on 26.08.2024 and the present petition has been filed on 08.05.2025 by indicating that the order could not come into the knowledge of the petitioner because his accountant was out of city for long time and he forgot to inform the petitioner. Such kind of lackluster attitude on part of the petitioner, cannot and does not come to its aid.
Be that as it may, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY 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.