Ms Sara Eminent vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that a separate writ petition ought to have been filed in respect of penalty orders passed for each assessment year. The Court found that the writ petition was not maintainable on this procedural ground alone. The reasoning was that the penalty orders were passed in respect of more than one assessment year, necessitating individual filings. The Court did not delve into the merits of the penalty orders themselves or the grounds for imposing penalties under Section 125 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file separate writ petitions for penalty orders pertaining to different assessment years.

Facts

The petitioner challenged eight penalty orders passed under Section 125 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. These penalty orders pertained to different assessment years. The petitioner filed a single writ petition and paid a single court fee for all eight orders. The revenue, represented by the State, did not file a counter-affidavit or present arguments on the merits of the penalty orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether a single writ petition is maintainable when penalty orders under Section 125 of the Uttarakhand GST Act pertain to different assessment years? The petitioner argued that a single writ petition was filed, and a single court fee was paid, implying an attempt to consolidate multiple challenges. The revenue, represented by the State, did not present any arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground or any other ground. The Court did not record any arguments from the revenue on this specific issue.