M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention that the assessment order was without jurisdiction lacked merit. The Court noted that the State's supplementary counter-affidavit disclosed that the petitioner had filed a return for regular assessment of tax and had not opted for compounding during the relevant period. This fact directly contradicted the petitioner's claim that they had applied for compounding and paid tax through that method, which would have precluded a regular assessment. Consequently, the Court found no basis for the petitioner's argument that the assessment order was erroneously passed. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shailendra Eat Udyog, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.06.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Sector-6, Mathura. This order assessed the petitioner to tax for April 2018 under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act, 2018. The petitioner's first appeal against this assessment was dismissed as being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was without jurisdiction because they had applied for compounding and paid tax through that method on 27.11.2017, thus precluding a regular assessment. However, the State's supplementary counter-affidavit revealed that the petitioner had filed a return for regular assessment of tax and had not opted for compounding during the relevant period.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.06.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Sector-6, Mathura, is without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's claim of having applied for and paid tax through the compounding method on 27.11.2017, thereby precluding a regular assessment under the U.P. GST Act, 2018? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was wholly without jurisdiction because they had applied for compounding and paid tax accordingly on 27.11.2017, which meant no regular assessment could arise. Respondent's Contention: The State, through its supplementary counter-affidavit, contended that the petitioner had filed a return for regular assessment of tax and had not opted for compounding during the assessment period in question, thus refuting the petitioner's claim.
Sections Cited
Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 134 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijay Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Digvijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Sector-6, Mathura, by which the petitioner has been assessed to tax for the month April, 2018 under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against that order, the assessee had filed first appeal that came to be dismissed as beyond time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 10.06.2018 passed by the assessing authority is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as on 27.11.2017, the assessee had applied for compounding and had paid tax through compounding method. Thus, no regular assessment may ever have arisen under the Act.
During the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in running brick kiln. While the assess
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.