Remanded

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal v. Union of India Min. of Finance Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024WTAX/277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court set aside an impugned order and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice regarding exemption claims. The Court noted failure to prove service of notices as an omission but chose to dispose by remitting the matter for adjudication upon receipt of the reply, warning that no reply would leave the matter as is.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.01.2023 set aside; petitioner directed to submit reply within four weeks for adjudication.

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83901-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 277 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal Respondent :- Union Of India Min. Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Agrawal,Amar Mani Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dipak Seth,Surya Prakash

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record including the original records produced before us, what comes out is that notices were sent to the petitioner by speed post. There is nothing on record to show that notices were actually served upon the petitioner. Now a days, tracking report can very well be obtained but we do not wish to enter into this issue any further as the petitioner herein claims exemption under a notification of central government dated 20.06.2012.

¶8

However, Shri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that this exemption is not automatic under the notification but the person claiming exemption has to satisfy in response to notice issued to it that it is providing a service which is exempted under the notification and the conditions of notification are to be satisfied in this case. Therefore, this requires some sort of adjudication. However, he has fairly submitted that the reply could not be filed by the petitioner for whatever reasons. If he submits such a reply, now, the same can be considered and final decision can be taken after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2023, however, the petitioner is directed to submit its response to the show cause notice issued to it, copies of which have been obtained subsequently, within four weeks from today, whereupon the concerned competent authority shall consider such reply if submitted and pass a reasoned order keeping in mind the pleas raised therein. If no reply is submitted by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, then the matter shall rest as it is.

¶10

(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 akhilesh/-

¶12

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal v. Union of India Min. of Finance Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal v. Union of India Min. of Finance Deptt. of Revenue and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nagma Bano Alias Nagma Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deppt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Mahant Shri Jagdish Das Shastri Thru.the Power of Attorney Holder-Baba Kishan Das Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 12 Others

Sadhu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Nand Lal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

M/S Adnanul Haq Contractors Bahraich Thru. Proprietor Adnanul Haq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others