M/S Maa Enterprises vs. Commissioner Commericial Tax And Another
Held
The Court held that the present petition is identical in its issues to Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021 (M/s Maa Geeta Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another). As the Court had dismissed the aforementioned petition by a detailed order passed on the same day, the present petition is also dismissed on the same terms. The reasoning for the dismissal is contained within the detailed order of the identical case, which is not provided in this excerpt. Therefore, the specific findings on the legal sustainability of the impugned order under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the ratio decidendi are not explicitly detailed here, but are understood to be the same as in the dismissed case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Enterprises, has filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.08.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, Sector 1, Bareilly. This order pertains to the tax periods of June, July, and September of the Financial Year 2020-21. The challenge is made under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the issue in this petition is identical to that in Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021 (M/s Maa Geeta Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another), which was dismissed by a detailed order passed on the same day.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.08.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, Sector 1, Bareilly, under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods of June, July, and September of the Financial Year 2020-21, is legally sustainable? The petitioner, M/s Maa Enterprises, argued that the issue involved in this petition is identical to that in Writ Tax No. 760 of 2021 (M/s Maa Geeta Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another). The petitioner relied on the arguments and outcome of that case. The respondent, Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another, did not present any specific arguments beyond what was implied by the Court's reference to the dismissal of the identical writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 838 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Enterprises Respondent :- Commissioner Commericial 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 2020-21 (June, July, September) 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 Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another). We have dismissed the said petition by a detailed order passed today.
For the reasons contained in that order, the present petition is also dismissed, on the same terms. 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.