Dismissed¶¶24

M/S Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2025WTAX/2333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST Act 2017; Section 74(5) intimation dated 04.04.2025; limitation Section 74(10) versus Section 75(3) two-year window for orders on remand; Single Judge three-month timeline held expeditory only, not a limitation; writ dismissed; Allahabad High Court Division Bench (Arun Bhansali CJ, Kshitij Shailendra J); WRIT TAX No. 2333 of 2025; M/s Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited v. State of U.P.; Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Sector 2 Gautam Buddha Nagar; prior Writ Tax No. 106 of 2024 remand dated 06.02.2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-2, Gautam Buddha Nagar is directed to comply with the learned Single Judge's directions regarding grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing of a reasoned order. ¶¶24

M/S Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited Vs State of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the Act on 04.04.2025 is barred by limitation under Section 74(10) of the Act. +2 more

¶¶5

Court's answer

Per Section 75(3) of the Act, any order required to be issued pursuant to a remand (by the Appellate Authority, Tribunal or a court) must be issued within two years from the date of communication of the direction; this statutory window, not the Single Judge's three-month timeline, governs the continuation of proceedings.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

It cannot be said that the proceedings pursuant to the learned Single Judge's directions cannot be continued beyond a period of three months.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The three-month period indicated by the learned Single Judge was only with a view to expedite the proceedings and cannot be read as creating a period of limitation different from that provided under Section 75(3) of the Act; accordingly, the petitioner's contention based on lapse of the three-month period is rejected.ratio¶¶19
Since the show cause notice was not quashed by the Court, apparently there was no necessity to issue a fresh intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J) dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice of intimation of tax under Section 74(5) of the GST Act dated 04.04.2025, issued on remand by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 2, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The remand flowed from Writ Tax No. 106 of 2024, in which the learned Single Judge (order dated 06.02.2024) quashed the assessment order dated 29.07.2021 and the appellate order dated 14.02.2023 and directed a fresh reasoned order after hearing, indicating completion within three months. Holding: (i) the three-month indication was only to expedite proceedings and created no limitation distinct from Section 75(3) of the Act, under which an order pursuant to a remand must be issued within two years from communication of the direction; (ii) consequently the proceedings were not barred, whether under Section 74(10) or by lapse of the three-month period (which expired 05.05.2024); and (iii) since the show cause notice had not been quashed, a fresh Section 74(5) intimation was apparently unnecessary. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to comply with the Single Judge's directions regarding opportunity of hearing and passing of a reasoned order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82238-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2333 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- M/s Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Ananya Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.)

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the notice of intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 2, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition).

¶7

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act dated 23.07.2021, to which a reply was filed by the petitioner and same culminated in order dated 29.07.2021. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed appeal.

¶8

The appeal, filed by the petitioner, came to be decided by the appellate authority on 14.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved of the orders dated 29.07.2021 and 14.02.2023, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 106 of 2024. When the petition came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court, on noticing the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the order passed by the Authorities were nonspeaking and that the matter may be remanded back granting fresh opportunity of hearing and a de novo assessment may be carried out by the concerned authority, passed the following direction:

¶9

"5. In the light of the above, the impugned orders dated July 29, 2021

¶10

and February 14, 2023 are quashed and set aside, with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division-02, Gautam Budh Nagar to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner. The entire process for passing the order under Section 74 of the Act should be completed within a period of three months from date. Upon completion of the order passed under Section 74 of the Act a copy of the same be handed over to the petitioner within a week, thereafter."

¶11

Pursuant to the said direction, apparently, when the respondents did not fix a date for hearing, the petitioner moved a refund claim on 27.08.2024 seeking refund of the amount pre-deposited by him while filing the appeal. The said refund claim was granted on 30.09.2024 by the CGST Authorities. Whereafter it appears that the respondents becoming aware of the requirement to proceed with passing of a fresh assessment order pursuant to the remand order of this Court, on 04.04.2025, issued notice along with intimation of tax under Section 74(5) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the Act is ex-facie barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Section 74(10) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further submissions were made that the learned Single Judge required that the entire process for passing of the order under Section 74 of the Act be completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order by the learned Single Judge and as the said period of three months was over on 05.05.2024, the respondents could not have thereafter taken any steps in this regard.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel made submissions that in the present case, learned Single Judge while setting aside the orders dated 29.07.2021 and 14.02.2023 had required providing opportunity of hearing and the said exercise could be completed within a period

¶14

of two years from the date of communication of the said direction in terms of Section 75(3) of the Act and as the period of two years has so far not expired, no challenge can be laid based on the limitation as provided under Section 74(10) of the Act.

¶15

Further submissions have been made that the time period granted by the learned Single Judge cannot be read as creating a limitation other than that provided under Section 75(3) of the Act qua the issuance of intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act. Submissions were made that in fact there was no necessity to issue a fresh intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act as the only direction by the learned Single Judge was to provide opportunity of hearing as the reply to show cause notice had already been filed by the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶16

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶17

A perusal of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would reveal that original order passed on 29.07.2021 and appellate order passed on 14.02.2023 were quashed and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. The show cause notice was not quashed by the Court and, therefore, apparently, there was no necessity to issue the fresh intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act.

¶18

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the learned Single Judge has required passing of the order within a period of three months and more than a year has passed since the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the proceedings being barred by limitation is concerned, the said contention has been noticed for being rejected only. The indication

¶19

made by learned Single Judge was only with a view to expedite the proceedings and the same cannot be read as creating a different period of limitation than what is provided under Section 75(3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 75(3) of the Act, inter alia, reads as under :-

¶20

"75(3). Where any order is required to be issued in pursuance of the direction of the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or a court, such order shall be issued within two years from the date of communication of the said direction."

¶21

A perusal of the above provision reveals that any order which is required to be issued pursuant to the remand, the same shall be issued within a period of two years from the date of communication of the said order.

¶22

In view thereof, it cannot be said that the proceedings pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge cannot be continued beyond a period of three months.

¶23

In view of the above fact and situation, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 74(5) of the Act and questioning the continuance of proceedings pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2024 has no substance.

¶24

The petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶25

The respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-2, Gautam Buddha Nagar is directed to comply with the directions of learned Single Judge regarding grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing of a reasoned order.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Mukesh Pal/Jyotsana

¶27

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Eppel Tone Engineers Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases