M/S A.K. Oversees And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that it should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was based on the facts presented, particularly the issuance of a detention order, followed by a show cause notice with a specified date for reply, and the subsequent passing of an order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's failure to respond. The substantial amount of tax and penalty demanded (Rs. 28,53,563.64) and the continued non-compliance with the order further weighed against granting relief. The ratio decidendi is that where statutory remedies exist and a party fails to comply with procedural requirements and subsequent orders, the High Court may decline to interfere under its writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that this dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from preferring any statutory appeal, if permissible under law.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s A.K. Oversees and two others, challenged a detention order dated September 11, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad)-2, Kanpur. The detention order was followed by a show cause notice, also dated September 11, 2019, which was served on the driver of the vehicle. The notice fixed September 18, 2019, as the date for filing a reply. No reply was submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, an order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was passed on September 29, 2019, determining the tax and penalty for the release of goods and vehicle. This order demanded a total of Rs. 28,53,563.64. The order was sent by registered post on September 30, 2019, and has not been complied with to date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner, considering the facts of the case? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought relief from the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded in the judgment for the petitioner's side. Respondent's Contention: The State argued that the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised due to the non-compliance by the petitioner with the orders passed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the substantial amount in dispute. No specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were explicitly mentioned in the judgment for the respondent's side, other than the relevant sections of the Act under which the orders were passed.