M/S Jay Prakashthekedar vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax Mahoba

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jay Prakash Thekedar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.08.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, raising demands for the periods October 2019, December 2019, and January 2020. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mahoba, pointed out that the petitioner had previously filed four similar writ petitions (Writ Tax Nos. 1513 to 1516 of 2022) challenging similar orders under Section 74(9) of the Act. These earlier petitions were dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The respondent also highlighted that the petitioner's registration was cancelled on 13.03.2024, effective from 05.02.2024, a fact not disclosed in the present petition. The petitioner's counsel could not dispute the filing and dismissal of the earlier petitions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands. The petitioner's counsel could not dispute the fact that similar writ petitions filed by the petitioner, questioning orders passed under Section 74(9) of the Act, had been dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2022 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the order dated 03.08.2022 was contrary to the record, given the prior litigation. The Court also noted the suppression of material facts, including the previous dismissal of similar petitions and the subsequent cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's conduct in suppressing facts and making incorrect assertions undermined the sanctity of the judicial process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition, filed after a significant delay and concerning an order similar to those previously dismissed, constitutes suppression of material facts and an abuse of the court's process, particularly in light of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contentions: Not explicitly recorded, as the petitioner's counsel could not dispute the respondent's submissions regarding prior litigation and the dismissal of similar petitions. Respondent's contentions: The petitioner has suppressed material facts by not disclosing the previous filing and dismissal of four similar writ petitions challenging orders under Section 74(9) of the Act. The present petition, filed over two years after a similar order and after the dismissal of earlier petitions on grounds of alternative remedy, is an abuse of process. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to disclose the cancellation of their GST registration, which occurred prior to the filing of this petition. The conduct of the petitioner in approaching the court with unclean hands warrants dismissal.