M/S Irvine Polymers PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of the parties. The petitioner was directed to approach the proper officer, identified as the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) Sector 3, State Tax Roorkee, District Haridwar, within 15 days from the date of the order. The petitioner was to submit all relevant documents in their defence. The proper officer was then directed to pass an appropriate order within the subsequent 15 days after hearing the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the impugned orders but facilitated a resolution through a fresh hearing before the proper officer.
Facts
The petitioner, a firm manufacturing thermocol, challenged two orders passed by respondent no. 3: an order dated 13.12.2023 under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, and an order dated 19.03.2024 freezing the petitioner's bank account. Proceedings were initiated under Section 61 of the Act for scrutiny of accounts, revealing discrepancies. Notices were issued to the petitioner, but they failed to respond. Consequently, the impugned orders were passed, leading to the freezing of the petitioner's bank account. The respondent department, through its counsel, indicated that if the petitioner approached the proper officer, benefits might be granted after a hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.12.2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, is liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, freezing the petitioner's bank account, is liable to be quashed. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without proper response from their side due to notices not being effectively received or addressed, and sought quashing of these orders. The respondent State/Department, based on instructions, submitted that if the petitioner approached the proper officer, benefits could be granted after hearing the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 61
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
2024
WPMS No. 1121 of 2024
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Raj Avtar Singh, learned counsel, through video conferencing and Mr. Nishit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 through V.C.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73 sub-section 9 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act and further to quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 3 freezing the Bank account of the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a firm, which carries on the business of manufacturing of thermocol at Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner firm under Section 61 of the Utta
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.