M/S Deep And Sons Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deep and Sons Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging several orders and notices issued by the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax. These included a show cause notice under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18, with a disputed tax liability of Rs. 1081193.40 (CGST) and Rs. 1081193.40 (SGST). The petitioner also challenged an order under Section 73 of the Act dated 21.12.2023, a show cause notice/statement dated 17.03.2025 under Section 73, and an order of cancellation of registration dated 12.08.2025. The respondent is the State Tax authority.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after making brief submissions, prayed for the withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner sought liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court acceded to this request and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. Therefore, no findings were made on the validity of the impugned orders or notices, nor were any specific legal principles established or applied to the facts of the case. The Court's decision was solely based on the petitioner's request to withdraw and pursue an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders and notices, including the show cause notice under Section 73(9) and the order of cancellation of registration, are liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural impropriety or substantive illegality. The petitioner sought to challenge the validity and legality of the actions taken by the respondent authority. The respondent, the State Tax authority, was expected to defend its actions. The specific grounds of challenge by the petitioner were not detailed in the judgment, but the prayer indicates a challenge to the entire process leading to the tax demand and cancellation of registration. The Court had to decide if the petitioner's grievances warranted intervention through a writ petition. The petitioner argued for the quashing of the impugned orders and notices.