M/S Mittal Plywood And Furniture vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders were passed in gross breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted their first adjournment application on March 30, 2022, seeking 15 days' time to reply to the notice dated March 15, 2022, concerning alleged unverified transactions. The cause shown for adjournment was not disbelieved by the respondent. However, the adjournment application was rejected, and liability was assessed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit their reply and be heard. Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order dated March 31, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the UPGST Act and the rectification order dated April 11, 2022, passed under Section 161 of the UPGST Act. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, after granting reasonable time to the petitioner to submit their reply and affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mittal Plywood and Furniture, filed a writ petition challenging two orders passed by Respondent No. 2. The first order, dated March 31, 2022, was passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act for the tax period April 2018-March 2019. The second order, dated April 11, 2022, was a rectification order passed under Section 161 of the GST Act for the same tax period. The petitioner received a notice on March 15, 2022, regarding allegedly unverified transactions amounting to Rs. 3,19,22,729/-, with 15 days to reply. On March 30, 2022, the petitioner submitted their first adjournment application seeking 15 days' time, citing a cause that was not disbelieved by the authority. Despite this, the adjournment application was rejected, and the impugned orders were passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, dated March 31, 2022, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the rejection of the petitioner's first adjournment application and the subsequent assessment without affording a reasonable opportunity to reply? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended that their first adjournment application, seeking 15 days' time to file a reply to the notice regarding alleged unverified transactions, was rejected without sufficient reason, despite the cause shown not being disbelieved by the respondent. This prevented them from submitting a proper reply and being heard, leading to an arbitrary assessment. The respondent, State of U.P. and Another, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the rejection of the adjournment application or the adherence to natural justice principles.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 906 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Mittal Plywood And Furniture Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the U.P.GST Act and Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.03.2022 issued under rule 142(5) of the Rules by the Respondent No.2 for the tax period April 2018-March 2019 (F.Y. 2018-19) in violation of provision of the Act as well as in gross violation of the principle of natural justice (Annexure No 4 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed u/s 161 of the GST Act and GST DRC-08 dated 11.04.2022 issued/passed by the Respondent No.2 for the Tax period: April 2018 March 2019 (FY 2018-19). (iii) Issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus dir
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.