M/S Singh Trading Company A Proprietorship, Bahraich Thru. Proprietor, Sri. Tejendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Tax And Registration, Lucknow And Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4184 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 10 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Singh Trading Company A Proprietorship, Bahraich Thru. Proprietor, Sri. Tejendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Tax And Registration, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal,Nidhi Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a properietorship concern which is engaged in the business of trading in rice, paddy, food-grains and packing material and is a dealer which was duly registered under the provisions of erstwhile U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. He further submits that present dispute pertains to assessment year 2015-16 with regard to certain purchases made form one M/S Gupta Anna Bhandaar, Nanpara Road, Bahraich which is also a dealer duly registered under the provisions of VAT Act.
The purchases were made through tax Invoices and the payments in respect of the transactions was paid through banking channel but at the time of process of petitioner's claim, the input tax credit was denied as the said transaction was not disclosed by the seller in his returns filed before the authority.
Against the said order, the petitioner had filed first appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Gr. II) which was decided on 02.07.2021. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate authority, State had preferred a second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal.
In the said second appeal, the petitioner was duly issued notices and he had put in appearance but for a number of dates, he did not appear and consequently when the matter was taken up on 19.10.2022, an application for adjournment had been received through post on behalf of the petitioner stating that due to the flood in his area the could not appear and prayed for adjournment of the matter. The Commercial Tax Tribunal rejected the said application stating that it was an standard
application for adjournment and proceeded to decide the case on merits and by means of order dated 19.10.2022 allowed the appeal preferred by the State.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had moved an application for recall which is pending consideration and the petitioner confines his relief for a suitable by this Court to direct Commercial Tax Tribunal to decide the recall application for recall of the order dated 14.07.2023 expeditiously.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner does not object to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to recall the application preferred by the petitioner expeditious, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in case there is any other legal implediment.
It is further provided that in case petitioner moves an application for any interim protection during pendency of the recall application, the same may also be considered expeditiously.
The undertakes to cooperate before the Commercial Tax Tribunal and will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.
With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 16.1.2024 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.