M/S Parul Dixit Thru. Proprietor Parul Dixit vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance / State Tax U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Parul Dixit, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The recovery was sought for tax liability, interest, and penalty arising from the non-reimbursement and payment of enhanced tax liability upon the implementation of the GST Act. The petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition (Writ Tax No. 210 of 2023) for the same relief, which was decided on October 30, 2023. In that order, the petitioner was permitted to move a representation before the concerned Executive Engineer. The petitioner stated that the representation was filed, but it remained undecided despite the expiry of the four-week period stipulated by the Court for its disposal.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's remedy was not to file a successive writ petition before the High Court, but rather to file a contempt petition before the appropriate Court or take other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The Court observed that a similar petition had been decided on October 30, 2023, wherein the petitioner was permitted to move a representation before the Executive Engineer. The petitioner had indeed moved the representation, but it remained undecided beyond the stipulated period. The Court found that the procedural path for the petitioner was to pursue enforcement of the previous order through contempt proceedings or other legal avenues, rather than seeking fresh relief through another writ petition on the same grounds. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of on this procedural ground.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus restraining recovery proceedings for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, given the pendency and non-disposal of a prior representation filed pursuant to a High Court order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since their representation, filed as per the Court's previous direction, has not been decided within the stipulated time, the recovery proceedings initiated against them are premature and should be restrained. They sought to recover the tax liability, interest, and penalty from the opposite parties responsible for the non-reimbursement of enhanced tax liability due to GST implementation. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea. The Court noted that the petitioner's remedy lay in filing a contempt petition or taking appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, rather than filing a successive writ petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1344-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 239 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Parul Dixit Thru. Proprietor Parul Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Institutional Finance / State Tax U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 from initiating any recovery proceedings in pursuance of the Notice reference No.09AFUPD4289B1Z7/18-19/61 dated 2.11.2023 issued in respect of the financial year 2018-19 contained in Annexure No.16 and in pursuance of order dated 8.12.2023 issued to recover the interest and penalty for the financial year 2017-18 contained in Annexure No.17 and to recover the tax liability along with the interest and penalty from the opposite parties no.4 and 5 which has arisen only due to the non reimbursement and payment of enhanced tax liability upon implementation of GST Act." Admittedly, a similar petition bearing Writ Tax No.210 of 2023 (M/s. Parul Dixit through Proprietor Parul Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & others) was filed for the same relief which was decided by order dated 30.10.2023 wherein the petitioner was permitted to move representation before the Executive Engineer concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states she has moved the said representation, however till date her representation is not decided though the period of four weeks as directed by the Court for disposal of the said representation has expired long back. In the given facts and circumstances, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a contempt petition, not the successive
writ petition before this Court, before the appropriate Court or take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.) Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Arjun/- ARJUN PRASAD 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.