Case Law Details
N.G. Enterprises And Another Vs State of U.P. And 3 others (Allahabad High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court intervened in a tax dispute under the CGST Act, ordering a stay on recovery proceedings and mandating the deposit of 20% of the disputed tax liability. The judgment reflects the Court’s stance on interim relief in such cases.
The High Court’s decision draws reference to a previous order in a similar matter, where it was deemed appropriate to deposit only 20% of the disputed tax liability instead of the usual 50%. This precedent, based on earlier judgments, sets a favorable tone for taxpayers, providing relief by reducing the burden of deposit requirements during ongoing disputes.
The Court’s directive highlights the importance of balancing the interests of both the tax authorities and the taxpayers. By mandating a lesser deposit, the Court aims to mitigate the financial strain on taxpayers while ensuring that the interests of the revenue authorities are safeguarded.
Additionally, the Court’s decision underscores the procedural aspects of tax disputes, requiring respondents to file counter-affidavits within a specified timeline. This procedural step ensures a fair and comprehensive consideration of all arguments before the Court reaches a final decision.
The Allahabad High Court’s order to stay recovery proceedings and mandate a deposit of 20% of the disputed tax liability reflects a balanced approach to tax disputes under the CGST Act. By reducing the deposit requirement, the Court provides interim relief to taxpayers while maintaining the integrity of the legal process. This ruling emphasizes the significance of procedural fairness and equitable relief in tax litigation, setting a precedent for future cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners relies upon an order dated 12.12.2023 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Tax No.1412 of 2023. It was in favour of the same petitioners, as in the present petition, but for different assessment year. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is delineated below:
“In the wake of the preceding discussion, I am persuaded by the view taken by the learned single Judges of this Court in M/S Kent Cables (supra), M/S Tulsi Steels (supra) and M/S Nandan Sales Corporation (supra) in preference to the requirement to deposit 50% of the disputed tax liability.
The application for interim relief is finally disposed of with the following direction:
A. The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax amount). Subject to the aforesaid deposit, the recovery proceedings of the balance amount shall remain stayed till the decision of this writ petition.”
3. I am consensus ad idem with the view taken by the coordinate bench, and accordingly, similar direction is issued in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks; rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
5. Tag and list with Writ Tax Nos.1412 and 1415 of 2023 on 19.02.2024.
6. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit 20 per cent of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax liability).
7. Subject to aforesaid deposit being made by the petitioners within four weeks from date, the recovery proceedings of the balance amount shall remain stayed till the present writ petition is finalised.
Author Bio
