Dr. Ambedakar Enterprises Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Munib Ram vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Ambedkar Enterprises, through its proprietor Mr. Munib Ram, has challenged an order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ghazipur. This order was issued under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the tax period 2019-20. The judgment notes that the present writ petition has identical facts to another writ petition, Writ Tax No. 769 of 2023, which was disposed of by the Court on the same day for the same reasons. The dispute involves a tax demand, though the specific amount is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but a deposit of Rs. 2,75,000/- is mentioned as a condition for setting aside the order.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions. The impugned order dated 30.11.2022 shall stand set aside if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- before the adjudicating authority (respondent No. 2) within three weeks from the date of the order. Following this deposit, the petitioner will have a further period of two weeks to file its reply to the contents of the notice and the order. If the petitioner complies with these conditions, the adjudicating authority is directed to fix a fresh date and proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioner has undertaken not to seek any undue adjournments before the adjudicating authority. The ratio of this decision is that procedural compliance and a substantial deposit can lead to an opportunity for a fresh adjudication, effectively setting aside an ex-parte or procedurally flawed order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ghazipur under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20, is liable to be set aside or modified. The petitioner, Dr. Ambedkar Enterprises, has challenged this order. The State, represented by the respondent authorities, is defending the order. The petitioner's counsel argued for the setting aside of the order. The respondent's counsel, the Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order. The Court's decision hinges on the procedural fairness and legality of the order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond their general stance on the validity of the order, but it does indicate a path for the petitioner to seek relief by making a deposit and filing a reply.