M/S Manoj Metal, Industries Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36863-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 822 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/s Manoj Metal, Industries Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Prakash Mathur for Nagendra Krishna

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.)

¶6

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

¶7

This writ petition is directed against order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-27, Kanpur under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act'), raising a demand of Rs.1,72,20,549/-.

¶8

It is inter alia submitted in the petition that petitioner firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing led ingot, led oxide and battery plates and was availing input tax credit on the raw material purchased by it, besides manufacturing, the petitioner was also trading in the said goods.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Special Investigation Wing inspected the four business premises of the petitioner and found that the business premises situated at J-29, Panki Site-3, Kanpur was not declared while seeking registration under the Act.

¶10

On 31.10.2023, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice that the premises which was not declared while seeking registration was being used for business activities surreptitiously and illegally and called upon the petitioner to pay tax and interest.

¶11

Reply to the notice was filed claiming that the premises, though was declared at the time of registration, the same was not entered

¶12

in the declared place of business. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case by order dated 13.02.2024 and passed the order impugned.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the respondents were not justified in raising the demand against the petitioner which is based on presumptions and surmises, without concrete evidence on record. Submissions have been made that while seeking registration, Partnership Deed was filed along with the application for registration. The Partnership Deed mentioned all the four premises as business premises and, therefore, it was the duty of the respondents to have included the same while registering the petitioner under GST, failure on part of the respondents to include the said premises cannot be made basis for creating demand against the petitioner. It was sought to be emphasized that there was no ulterior motive involved in not including the premises in question while making application seeking registration and that petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing while passing the order impugned.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that petitioner was issued show cause notice to which reply has been filed and though there is no dispute qua the fact that the premises in question was not disclosed at the time of registration, the blame is sought to be placed on the respondents for its non-inclusion, which plea is absolutely baseless. Submissions have been made that merely because the premises in question was indicated in the Partnership Deed which formed part of the application, cannot be a reason to claim that the same had been disclosed and/or the same formed part of the declared premises and, therefore, on the admitted facts, the petitioner does not have any case. In the petition, except for claiming disclosure at the time of registration,

¶15

no challenge has been laid on the merit of the order passed by the competent authority.

¶16

Further submissions have been made that the petitioner despite being well aware of the passing of the order impugned, chose not to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act and this Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum for adjudicating the issues sought to be raised and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶17

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

¶18

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the premises situated at J-29, Panki Site-3, Kanpur wherein, admittedly, business was being conducted by the petitioner, qua the same, the registration was not sought by the petitioner and qua the other three premises, the registration was applied and granted. On account of the inspection conducted by the Special Investigation Wing, the fact of the fourth site came to the light, based on which the notice under Section 74 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The only plea raised in response to the show cause notice has been that the Partnership Deed, which was annexed with the application seeking registration, also contained particulars about the fourth site and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not disclose the said site and consequently the charge against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

¶19

The plea raised is ex facie baseless. Merely because the Partnership Deed makes reference to premises other than qua which the registration is sought, the Registering Authority is not expected to register the said premises also for the purpose of GST. It is for the party to fairly disclose all the sites wherein the

¶20

business is being conducted by the applicant and, therefore, despite the fact that business was being conducted at the fourth site and only three sites were got registered and such registration continued for over six years, and no attempt was made by the petitioner to get the said premises included for the purpose of GST, the attempt made to shift the burden on the respondents in not registering the same, cannot be countenanced.

¶21

Except for taking the said plea, no other issue has been raised in the petition pertaining to the determination made by the competent authority except for a vague submissions regarding not considering the contentions raised and argued in support of the case. For the said plea raised, which would essentially be factual, it was required of the petitioner to file appeal under the provisions of the Act which, for reasons best known to the petitioner, it has not availed and even the present petition has been filed after passage of over one year since passing of the order dated 13.02.2024, on 28.02.2025. No case for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out in the petition.

¶22

In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned passed by the competent authority. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 AHA

¶24

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

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Manoj Metal, Industries v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manoj Metal, Industries v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases