M/S Maa Enterprises vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition was to be dismissed on the same terms as Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021, which had been dismissed by a detailed order passed on the same day. The reasoning for the dismissal was not elaborated in this judgment but was stated to be contained in the prior order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.08.2021, issued under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was upheld by implication. No specific findings on the merits of the petitioner's case were recorded in this judgment, as it relied entirely on the precedent of the earlier dismissed petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 25, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, Sector 1, Bareilly. This order was passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods of November, December, and January of the Financial Year 2019-20. The Court noted that the issue in this petition was identical to that in another case, Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021 (M/s Maa Geeta Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another), which had been dismissed by a detailed order passed on the same day.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.08.2021, issued under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is legally sustainable. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. No specific grounds or provisions were detailed in the judgment regarding the petitioner's arguments, other than a general challenge to the order's validity. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the impugned order was valid. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue, but it implies their defense of the order. The Court's decision was based on a prior, detailed order concerning an identical issue.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 836 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Enterprises Respondent :- Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manu Ghildyal, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
Present petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 issued by the respondent nos. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, Sector 1, Bareilly for the tax period / Financial Year 2019-20 (November, December, January) under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The issue involved in this petition is identical to that involved in Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021 (M/s Maa Geeta Order Date :- 15.11.2021 Saurabh
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.