M/S Babu Ji Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that there was no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the show cause notice. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the show cause notice, nor had they raised the objections being made in the writ petition before the issuing authority. The Court implicitly applied the principle that alternative remedies or departmental procedures should be exhausted before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere at this stage. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Babu Ji Traders, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 17.08.2022 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, STO (MC) Commissioner Tax, Etah, and a form GST MOV-2 dated 13.08.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Etah. The petitioner raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to issue the show cause notice and the competence of the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) concerning the interception of a vehicle on 13.08.2022. The writ petition did not indicate that the petitioner had submitted any reply to the show cause notice, raising the objections now presented to the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for challenging a show cause notice without the petitioner first filing a reply to the said notice, thereby raising objections before the issuing authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued without proper jurisdiction and that the action of intercepting the vehicle was by an incompetent authority. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (State of U.P. and Another) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondent would have relied on the principle that statutory remedies or departmental procedures should be exhausted before approaching the High Court via a writ petition.
Sections Cited
GST MOV 07, GST MOV-2
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1099 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Babu Ji Traders Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla,Jai Prakash Narain Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
The present writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 17.08.2022 in G.S.T. MOV 07 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, STO (MC) Commissioner Tax, Etah as also the form GST MOV-2 dated 13.08.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) Etah. Various objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to issue show cause notice and the competence of the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Etah about the action of the officer intercepting the vehicle on 13.08.2022.
However, in none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, it is indicated that the petitioner has submitted any reply to the show cause notice raising objections which are being made here in the present petition.
There is no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 17.08.2022. The writ petition is, accordin
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.