Jaspal Tyres Through Its Partner vs. Commisisoner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that the order dated 22.09.2022 was obtained by the petitioner by suppressing material facts. The reasoning was based on the submission by the CGST counsel that notice was served only on the State and not on the CGST, which was a necessary party. Consequently, the Court decided to recall the order dated 22.09.2022. The writ petition and the modification application were dismissed on this ground. The ratio decidendi is that obtaining court orders by suppressing material facts, particularly the non-service of notice on a necessary party, is a ground for recalling such orders and dismissing the underlying proceedings.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition and subsequently a modification application seeking to correct the name of a respondent. The original order dated 22.09.2022 was passed by the High Court. The modification application sought to change the respondent from "Superintendent, State Goods and Service Tax, Haldwani, Uttarakhand" to "Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Haldwani, Uttarakhand". The CGST counsel submitted that the original order was obtained by serving notice only on the State and not on the CGST. The Court observed that the order dated 22.09.2022 was obtained by suppressing material facts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 22.09.2022 was obtained by suppressing material facts, thereby warranting its recall? The petitioner argued that the modification application was filed to correct a clerical error in the respondent's name. The revenue (CGST) argued that the original order was obtained by suppressing the material fact that the CGST was not served with notice, and therefore, the order was obtained through misrepresentation. The Court had to decide if the petitioner's actions constituted suppression of material facts.
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
WPMS No. 2325 of 2022 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Shri Tarun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the CGST. Present modification application no. 1 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner for correction of the name of respondent no. 2 in order dated 22.09.2022 passed by this Court i.e. in place of “Superintendent, State Goods and Service Tax, Haldwani, Uttarakhand” name of “Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Haldwani, Uttarakhand” be corrected. Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the CGST submits that present order has been obtained by the petitioner, by serving the notice upon State and not upon him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that present order has been obtained by the petitioner by suppressing the material fact. Accordingly, order dated 22.09.2022 passed by this Court is recalled. The writ petition and modification applicat
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.