M/S B R Industries vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was misconceived. The reasoning was that the order dated January 17, 2020, was consequential to the seizure order dated August 31, 2018. Since the seizure order was already the subject matter of a pending writ petition (Writ Tax No. 1298 of 2018), the High Court found no reason to entertain a separate writ petition challenging the consequential order. The Court explicitly stated that it did not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. However, upon the petitioner's statement of intent to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Court granted permission to withdraw the petition, and accordingly, dismissed it as withdrawn.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s B R Industries, challenged an order dated January 17, 2020, which was a consequence of a seizure order dated August 31, 2018. The petitioner admitted that the August 31, 2018 order was itself under challenge in a separate writ petition, Writ Tax No. 1298 of 2018, which was pending. The High Court noted that there was no reason to entertain the current writ petition challenging a consequential order when the primary order was already under adjudication. The petitioner's counsel subsequently stated that the petitioner intended to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ petition challenging a consequential order is maintainable when the primary order leading to it is already under challenge in a pending writ petition? The petitioner argued that the present writ petition was filed to challenge the consequential order dated January 17, 2020. The respondent State argued that the primary order dated August 31, 2018, which led to the consequential order, was already subject to challenge in Writ Tax No. 1298 of 2018, and therefore, entertaining a challenge to the consequential order would be inappropriate. The Court did not explicitly frame these as questions of law but addressed the maintainability of the petition based on the procedural history.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 334 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S B R Industries Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Gupta,Manish Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 17.01.2020 which is consequential to the seizure order dated 31.08.2018. It is admitted that the order dated 31.08.2018 is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Tax No.1298 of 2018, which is pending consideration. We do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition, challenging the consequential order.
The writ petition is found misconceived and hence dismissed.
After the above order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner herein proposes to file an Appeal under Section 107 of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 5. In view of the said statement, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
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.