M/S Ashok Kumar Singh Thekedar Thru. Proprietor Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secretary,Tax And Registration Lucknow And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ashok Kumar Singh Thekedar, through its proprietor Ashok Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The petition challenged an order that dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The respondent was the State of U.P. through the Additional Chief Secretary, Tax and Registration, Lucknow, and two others. The petitioner argued that the impugned order dismissing their appeal was bad in law. The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had admitted liability in the show-cause notice and had not paid the admitted amount.

Held

The Court held that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was based upon the petitioner's admission of liability. The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, informed the Court that the petitioner had admitted the liability in the show-cause notice and had not paid the amount. Given this admission and non-payment, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The specific details of the show-cause notice, the admitted amount, or the tax period were not recorded in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's alleged admission of liability in the show-cause notice. (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order dismissing their appeal was bad in law, implying procedural or substantive defects in the appellate order. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner in the provided text. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, contended that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was based on the petitioner's admission of liability in the show-cause notice, and since the admitted amount had not been paid, no interference by the Court was warranted. The respondent relied on the fact of the admission and non-payment.