M/S Maha Laxmi Enterprises vs. The State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maha Laxmi Enterprises, has challenged an ex parte order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-8, Meerut. This order was issued under Section 74 of the GST Act for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contends that the controversy in this case is identical to that in a previous matter, Writ-Tax No. 58 of 2023 (M/s Mohan Agencies vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided by a coordinate Bench of the High Court on February 13, 2023. The revenue is represented by the State of U.P. and the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition on the same terms as the earlier order in Writ-Tax No. 58 of 2023 (M/s Mohan Agencies vs. State of U.P. and Another). The reasoning is based on the petitioner's submission that the controversy is squarely covered by the aforementioned precedent. Therefore, the Court found no reason to deviate from the decision in the prior case. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is identical to a previously decided case by a coordinate bench, the High Court should follow its own precedent. The operative direction is that the petition is allowed on the same terms as the order in Writ-Tax No. 58 of 2023. The specific terms of that order, which would dictate the relief granted (likely setting aside the ex parte order and remanding for fresh consideration), are not detailed in this judgment but are implicitly adopted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 74 of the GST Act for the tax period 2019-2020 is liable to be set aside on grounds similar to those in Writ-Tax No. 58 of 2023. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench in M/s Mohan Agencies vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ-Tax No. 58 of 2023), implying that the grounds for challenge are identical and the relief granted in that case should apply here. No specific arguments on the merits of the Section 74 proceedings were detailed, but reliance was placed on the precedent. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim that the matter was covered by the precedent. Their counsel was present and heard, but no counter-arguments were presented in the judgment.