Disposed

Ajaz Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Sales Tax)

J&K HC2 Dec 2025WP(C)/785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged two GST assessment orders under Section 74(9) for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the appellate order dismissing appeals for non-payment of 10% statutory pre-deposit. The court found no legal infirmity but, given debatable issues, allowed restoration on deposit.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks to deposit 10% of disputed amount; on deposit, appeals restored to original number and decided on merits, with refund of pre-deposit if successful.

Ajaz Ahmad Mir Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors… — GST and Indirect Tax | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Serial no. 14 Regular cause list

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR A�D LADAKH AT SRI�AGAR

¶3

WP(C) 785/2024 CM(2045/2024)

¶4

AJAZ AHMAD MIR

¶5

…Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Zaffar Qadri, Advocate.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

U�IO� TERRITORY OF J A�D K A�D ORS

¶9

…Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Ms Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

02.12.2025

¶15

Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are two orders both dated 23^rd December, 2023, passed by the State Taxes Officer, Circle, P-Kashmir, in terms of Section 74(9) of the GST Act, 2017, for the financial years 2017-2018 and 20182019 respectively.

¶16

The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 26^th March, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority-II whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory predeposit provision.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the nature of the issues involved, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves one opportunity to have his appeals adjudicated on merits. We are aware that he missed out in seeking the consideration of his appeals because of his failure to make the statutory deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed amount and, therefore, we find no legal infirmity in the order impugned passed by the appellate authority.

¶18

We have gone through the impugned orders passed by assessing authority concerned and we find that fairly debatable issues of fact and law are involved for adjudication. It is in keeping this in view, we are inclined to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit 10 per cent of the disputed amount and seek adjudication of its appeals on merits.

¶19

The petition is accordingly disposed of by giving four weeks’ time to the petitioner to make deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed amount with the appellant authority concerned within four weeks and subject to such deposit, the appeals filed by the petitioner which have been dismissed in terms of order dated 26^th March, 2024 shall be restored to their original number and taken up for consideration on merits.

¶20

We further provide that in case the petitioner herein succeeds in his appeals, he shall be entitled to refund of the pre-deposit within a period of one month of the disposal of the appeals.

¶21

7. Disposed of.

¶22

(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

SRINAGAR:

¶24

02.12.2025

¶25

“Shahid Manzoor”

Ajaz Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Sales Tax)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaz Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Sales Tax)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U T of J and K through Commissioner Secretary Agricultural Department and Ors. Vs Ab Rashid Wani

Ghulam Hassan Shah Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Ors.

Manzoor Ahmad Lone Vs Mohammad Aijaz Asad and Ors. (Rural Development) (owp matter)

Hamida Jan Vs Sher E Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology and Ors.

Meema Bano Vs State of J and K and Ors. (Social Welfare)

M/S Ukas Goods Carrier Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Finance Department) ch