M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms and conditions as a companion case, Writ Tax No. 1712 of 2018. The reasoning provided is that the facts of the present case are identical to the companion case. Although the specific reasoning for allowing the companion case is not detailed in this excerpt, it is implied that the dismissal of the first appeal as time-barred was found to be erroneous or that the delay should have been condoned. The operative direction is that the writ petition is allowed, suggesting that the order dismissing the first appeal as time-barred is set aside, and the matter is likely to be remanded for a fresh consideration of the appeal on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 the month of February 2018 under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act, 2018. The petitioner had previously filed a first appeal against this assessment order, but it was dismissed as being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The present writ petition concerns facts identical to another case, Writ Tax No. 1712 of 2018, which was decided by a separate order on the same date.
Key Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's first appeal as beyond time was justified, considering the facts of the case? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of procedural timelines for appeals under the U.P. GST Act, 2018). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their first appeal was dismissed erroneously as being beyond time. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, it can be inferred that the petitioner sought to argue for condonation of delay or that the delay was justifiable. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by the State of U.P. and others, contended that the first appeal was indeed filed beyond the statutory time limit, leading to its dismissal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or reliance on provisions by the respondents beyond the fact of the appeal being time-barred.
Sections Cited
Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 136 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 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 February, 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.
The facts of the present case are identical to Writ Tax No. 1712 of 2018 (M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided by a separate order of the date.
For the same reasoning as contained in the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is also allowed on the same terms and conditions. Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Abhilash
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.