Disposed

M/S Arjun Construction , Sultanpur Thru. Partner Narendra Bahadur Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WTAX/179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting a representation and seek refund of GST. Court accepted deleting a prayer to stay tax notices and directed respondents to file counter-affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer regarding stay of tax notices deleted orally; case listed for evidence filing.

What the court decided

M/S Arjun Construction , Sultanpur Thru. Partner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 179 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Arjun Construction , Sultanpur Thru. Partner Narendra Bahadur Singh And Another

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Ambrish Kumar Pandey,Sweta Swarankar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶9

" (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quash the Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed by the Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer, PMGSY Div.- 1 (P.P.), P.W.D., Sultanpur by which the representation of the petitioner's has been rejected without considering the material in the representation and the evidence annexed therewith, which is not sustainable in eyes of law, contained as Annexure No.1. to this writ petition.

¶10

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties especially the Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer, PMGSY Div.- 1 (P.P.), P.W.D., Sultanpur to refund the 10% of G.S.T. amount either to the petitioner's or to the Tax Department pursuance to the Circulars/ Government Orders Dated 08.11.2017 and 09.11.2017 in the interest of justice.

¶11

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite Parties to exempt the petitioner from

¶12

other liabilities except to 10% of G.S.T. amount which has been payable by the Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer, PMGSY Div. 1 (P.P.), P.W.D., Sultanpur to the Opposite Party No. 5 i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division 1, Sultanpur, in the interest of justice.

¶13

(d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of directing Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite Parties stay the operation and implementation of the notices dated 02.06.2022 & 30.04.2024 against the petitioner's issued by the Opposite Party No.5 i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division- 1, Sultanpur in respect of irregularity for the Tax Period April 2018 το March 2019, April 2019 to March 2020, April 2020 to March 2021 and April 2021 to March 2022, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. "

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Writ-C No. 4716 of 2022, M/s Arjun Construction, Sultanpur and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2024 with a direction that the Public Works Department, Executive Engineer shall decide the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to him. Such representation has been decided by the impugned order.

¶15

The Executive Engineer has referred to the demand of GST made on the basis of notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division-I, Sultanpur dated 02.06.2022 and 30.04.2024.

¶16

Therefore, the petitioner has made a prayer in Clause-D of the writ petition for staying the operation and implementation of such notices.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State Respondents has pointed out that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners against the notices dated 02.06.2022 and 30.04.2024 is to file an Appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act which appeal the petitioner has not filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, says that he does not wish to press clauseD of the prayer in the writ petition and we allow its oral prayer, accordingly.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners shall make an appropriate note in the memo of the writ petition today itself deleting clause-D of the prayer.

¶20

With regard to the remaining prayers, counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks.

¶21

Two weeks, thereafter, is given to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶22

List this case on 27.08.2024.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Darpan Sharma

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Arjun Construction , Sultanpur Thru. Partner Narendra Bahadur Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M/S Arjun Construction , Sultanpur Thru. Partner Narendra Bahadur Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Khandelwal vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue India Govt. New Delhi Thru. Secy. and Others

Ashish Khandelwal vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue India Govt., New Delhi Thru. Secy. and Others

Archana vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhawan and 2 Others

Saurabh Gupta vs the Unique Identification Auth. of India, New Delhi Thru. Chief Executive Officer and Others

Anil Kumar Awasthi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rajat Sahai vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry Finance Income Tax Deptt., New Delhi and Another