Farooq Ahmad Khan vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The Court held that the judgment passed in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf's case (supra) covers the case of the present petitioner. The Court's reasoning was based on the petitioner's counsel's submission that the facts and legal position were identical, which the Court found to be correct after perusing the material on record. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the High Court on a similar matter is presented and found to be applicable, the current petition will be disposed of in line with that precedent. The operative directions issued were for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for registration of his GST Number within 07 days. The competent authority was directed to restore the petitioner's GST Number immediately, subject to completion of requisite formalities. The petitioner was further directed to file returns and deposit taxes, penalty, and interest within 07 days. The order was made conditional on the petitioner's compliance within the stipulated period, failing which the order would cease to be in operation. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Farooq Ahmad Khan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was entirely covered by a previous judgment of the same court in WP(C) No. 1061/2024, titled "Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors." The revenue or State was represented by Ms. Rahila Khan, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this petition is not detailed, other than the filing of the writ petition itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 26th July, 2024, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1061/2024, titled "Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors."? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's sole contention, as presented through their counsel, was that their case is entirely covered by the aforementioned judgment in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf's case. No specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules were explicitly named in relation to this argument, nor were any specific authorities or precedents cited beyond the prior judgment. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents (UT of J&K and Ors.).