M/S Jai Maa Laxmi Hosiery vs. Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Maa Laxmi Hosiery, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 7, 2021, passed by the First Appeal Authority. This order confirmed an earlier order dated September 6, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Unit 10, Commercial Tax, Agra. The impugned orders were passed under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The specific amount in dispute is not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of orders by the Assistant Commissioner and the subsequent confirmation by the First Appeal Authority, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders dated October 7, 2021, and September 6, 2021. The Court's decision was based on its prior ruling in Writ Tax No. 1126 of 2021 (M/S A.S. Enterprise Vs. Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. And 2 Others). For the same facts and reasoning applied in that case, the present petition was also allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has set aside similar orders based on specific facts and reasoning in a connected matter, subsequent identical matters should follow the same precedent. The operative direction was to release the goods and the vehicle forthwith. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated October 7, 2021, and September 6, 2021, passed by the First Appeal Authority and the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) respectively, are valid in law, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in a similar case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner relied on the High Court's decision in Writ Tax No. 1126 of 2021 (M/S A.S. Enterprise Vs. Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. And 2 Others), which involved the same facts and reasoning, and where the impugned orders were set aside. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the present petition should also be allowed on the same grounds. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Commissioner of State Tax U.P. and others) or the Standing Counsel.