Dr. Ambedakar Enterprisese vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Ambedkar Enterprisese, has challenged an order dated 01.12.2022 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, pertaining to the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner's counsel, Sri Aditya Pandey, presented the case, with Sri Ankur Agarwal appearing for the State. The High Court noted that an identical writ petition, Writ Tax No. 769 of 2023, with similar facts, was disposed of by a separate order on the same day. The present petition is being disposed of for the same reasons.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, subject to certain conditions. The Court held that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- before the adjudicating authority (respondent No. 2) within three weeks from the date of the order, the impugned order shall stand set aside. Following this deposit, the petitioner would be permitted to file their reply to the contents of the notice and the order within two weeks thereafter. Upon compliance, the adjudicating authority is directed to fix a fresh date and proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioner has also undertaken not to seek undue adjournments before the adjudicating authority. The specific reasoning for setting aside the order, beyond the conditional deposit, is not elaborated upon, but the principle appears to be to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present their case after making a substantial deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 01.12.2022, 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 2020-21, is liable to be set aside. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the order, implying it was passed without proper consideration of their case or in contravention of law. The specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in the judgment, but the relief sought is the setting aside of the order. Respondent's contention: The State, through the Standing Counsel, defended the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents by the respondent are recorded in the judgment.