M/S Shree Salasar Balaji Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court declined to interfere with the adjudication order dated 29.05.2021, holding that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Therefore, a writ petition was not warranted for this part of the challenge. Concerning the show cause notice dated 09.04.2021, the Court also declined interference, noting the absence of prior adjudication and leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all objections in the ongoing proceedings. For the third notice dated 23.12.2020, the Court accepted the State's submission that it was issued mistakenly. The Court granted the State liberty to withdraw this notice and allowed it to issue a fresh notice for the period August 2017 to March 2018, if in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, which the appropriate forum was directed to decide expeditiously on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Salasar Balaji Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging three notices and an adjudication order issued by the State of U.P. and its authorities. The first challenge was to an adjudication order dated 29.05.2021, passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, concerning the tax period of July 2017. The petitioner also challenged two show cause notices dated 09.04.2021 and 23.12.2020, both pertaining to the period July 2017 to March 2018, issued under Sections 127 and 74(3) of the Act, respectively. The State's counsel provided written instructions, indicating that the adjudication for July 2017 was concluded by the order dated 29.05.2021, and the petitioner had an appellate remedy. Regarding the notice dated 09.04.2021, it was stated that no prior adjudication existed, and the petitioner had filed a reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 29.05.2021 passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, for the tax period of July 2017, when an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the High Court should interfere with a show cause notice dated 09.04.2021 issued under Section 127 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, for the period July 2017 to March 2018, where no prior adjudication has occurred and the petitioner has filed a reply? 3. Whether a show cause notice dated 23.12.2020, issued under Section 74(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, for the period July 2017 to March 2018, which was apparently issued mistakenly, should be withdrawn by the State? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notices and order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner beyond the initial filing of the writ petition. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal against the adjudication order dated 29.05.2021. For the notice dated 09.04.2021, the State indicated no prior adjudication and left it open for the petitioner to raise objections. Regarding the notice dated 23.12.2020, the State conceded it was issued mistakenly and sought liberty to withdraw it.