Disposed

M/S Seal to Serve v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2024CW/13727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a D.B. Civil Writ Petition, the Court disposed of the matter without examining merits, directing Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation regarding the rejection of GST registration application, alleging pending dues from another firm owned by the petitioner, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation regarding dues details within two months.

M/S Seal to Serve Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:47891-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13727/2024

¶4

M/s Seal To Serve, Through Its Proprietor, Priyanka Musal, Address- 40, Gem Enclave, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan-302017.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur Zone, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Division-E, Sector, 10 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

The Superintendent, Central Goods And Services, Tax Range- Xviii, Sector, 10 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Services Tax, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kawal Singh Loha Mr. Rajesh Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

22/11/2024

¶17

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 20.03.2024 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for registration under Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[2024:RJ-JP:47891-DB]

¶20

[CW-13727/2024]

¶21

The grievance raised is that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there are some dues pending from an other firm owned by the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage restricts the prayer that the petitioner had filed representation dated 03.07.2024 requesting the respondents to give the details of the dues so that the needful can be done but the representation has not been decided.

¶23

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.

¶25

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶26

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶27

Chandan/Aarzoo Arora/82

M/S Seal to Serve v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Seal to Serve v. Union of India

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

Smt. Beena W/O Balveer Singh D/O Baldev Singh, Vs Balveer Singh Alias Bablu S/O Hukum Singh

M/S. Rajdhani Gas Services Vs Union of India

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Rajasthan Watch Manufactures

Manuj Goyal S/O Late Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax

M/S Baba Minerals Vs Union of India

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs Poonia Wines(Rewari)