Rahil Khan vs. Commissioner State Tax U.P. And 3 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Rahil Khan, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to complete an inquiry initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The inquiry was initiated by respondent No. 4. The respondents, represented by the State Law Officer, submitted that the Competent Authority would consider the objections filed by the petitioner and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing any final order. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history primarily consists of the filing of the writ petition and the submission made by the respondents.
Held
The Court directed that the Competent Authority shall complete the exercise of considering the objections filed by the petitioner and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not make any specific finding on the merits of the inquiry itself, but rather focused on ensuring procedural fairness and timely completion. The ratio decidendi is that the tax authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice by considering objections and providing hearings before passing final orders, and that High Courts can direct the expeditious completion of such statutory processes. The operative direction is for the completion of the inquiry and hearing within a stipulated timeframe.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to complete the inquiry initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued for a direction to complete the inquiry. The respondents contended that they would consider the petitioner's objections and grant a personal hearing before finalizing the order. The specific legal provisions beyond Section 67 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and any precedents or circulars relied upon by either side were not explicitly detailed in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 67
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Prayer made in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to complete the inquiry initiated by respondent No.4 under Section 67 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that before passing any final order, the objections filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the Competent Authority after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Allahabad 03.02.2023 Kuldeep/Rakesh Whether the order is speaking : No Chief Justice's Court Serial No.7 WRIT TAX No. - 1401 of 2022
Through :- Ms. Sufia Saba, Advocate
v/s Through :- Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh, State Law Officer for the respondents CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, JUDGE (Om Prakash Tripathi) Judge (Rajesh Bindal) Chief Justice Rahil Khan .....Petitioner Commissioner State Tax U.P. and others .....Respondents
Wh
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.