M/S M. M. Sons vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that if the petitioner deposits the bank guarantee of the required amount stipulated in the show cause notice dated March 8, 2018, within three weeks from the date of the order, the proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall stand concluded. This decision is based on the provisions of Section 129(5) of the Act and the law laid down in the Court's previous judgment in Writ Tax No. 344 of 2018 (M/s Skipper Limited Vs. Union of India and 3 others). The Court clarified that failure to deposit the bank guarantee within the stipulated time would automatically recall this order, and the authorities would proceed in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M. M. Sons, is challenging proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-IV, Varanasi. A show cause notice dated March 8, 2018, was issued, requiring the petitioner to deposit a bank guarantee equivalent to the stipulated amount. The petitioner's counsel undertook to deposit the bank guarantee within three weeks. The Court noted that if the bank guarantee is deposited within the stipulated time, the proceedings under Section 129(3) would conclude as per Section 129(5) of the Act and a previous judgment of the Court in Writ Tax No. 344 of 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can be concluded upon the deposit of a bank guarantee as stipulated in the show cause notice, in light of Section 129(5) of the Act and the precedent set in M/s Skipper Limited Vs. Union of India and 3 others. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued, through their counsel, that the proceedings could be concluded by depositing the required bank guarantee within the specified timeframe. They relied on the undertaking to deposit the bank guarantee and the court's previous judgment in Writ Tax No. 344 of 2018. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent authorities, implying their stance on the necessity of compliance with the show cause notice.