Nandani Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Held
The Court noted that the order dated 19.06.2019, which was a consequential recovery order, had been recalled by a subsequent order dated 21.09.2019. Consequently, the prayer for quashing the order dated 19.06.2019 was rendered infructuous. Regarding the order dated 01.06.2019, the Court observed that the directions issued by the High Court were not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also not aggrieved by the framing of by-laws. As for the recovery part of the order dated 01.06.2019, in light of the recall of the 19.06.2019 order, there was no recovery initiated against the petitioner at that point. Therefore, the prayer concerning the recovery aspect of the 01.06.2019 order was considered premature. The Court clarified that it remained open for the petitioner to challenge any future recovery initiated against them as a consequence of the 01.06.2019 order. The petition was disposed of with these observations.
Facts
The petitioner, Nandani Traders, challenged two orders dated 01.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 passed by the respondents. The order dated 01.06.2019 pertained to the removal of hoardings, recovery of dues, and arrangements for public advertisements. The order dated 19.06.2019 was a consequential recovery order. The petitioner argued that with the advent of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), a Central Act, the provisions of the State Act relating to municipal taxes were repealed. Consequently, any agreement for tax collection by the Nagar Nigam and subsequent recovery based on such a void contract were illegal. Subsequently, an order dated 21.09.2019 was brought to the Court's notice, recalling the order-cum-notice dated 19.06.2019.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery of dues by the Nagar Nigam, based on agreements for tax collection for advertisements in public places, is legally sustainable after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, considering the potential repeal of State Act provisions related to municipal levies? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the introduction of the GST Act rendered the State Act provisions concerning municipal tax collection for advertisements void. Therefore, any agreement for tax collection by the Nagar Nigam and subsequent recovery actions were based on a void contract and were thus illegal. The petitioner relied on the principle that actions taken under repealed or void provisions are unsustainable. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or State respondents regarding the sustainability of the recovery orders after the GST regime. However, the subsequent recall of the recovery order suggests an acknowledgment of issues with the recovery process.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35038 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nandani Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Singh,Sri Chandra Kant Parekh(Sr. Adv.),Vivek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vashishtha Tiwari Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.M. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged two orders dated 01.06.2019 and 19.6.2019. So far as the order dated 1.6.2019 is concerned, the said order has been passed for removal of the hoardings etc and also for the purposes of any dues if there are, for recovery of the same and then further orders have been passed for the purposes of making arrangement for the advertisement in public places. As far as the order dated 19.6.2019 is concerned that has been passed as a consequence to the order dated 1.6.2019 which has also been referred to in the order of recovery. It further transpires
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.